On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:43:04AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> We currently have hundreds of proc files that implement plain, read-only
> seq_file based interfaces. This series consolidates them using new
> procfs helpers that take the seq_operations or simple show callback
> directly.
>
>
We currently have hundreds of proc files that implement plain, read-only
seq_file based interfaces. This series consolidates them using new
procfs helpers that take the seq_operations or simple show callback
directly.
A git tree is available at:
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git pro
On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 08:19:49PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 05:47:47PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Changes since V1:
> > - open code proc_create_data to avoid setting not fully initialized
> >entries live
> > - use unsigned int for state_size
>
> Need t
On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 06:45:31PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 08:19:49PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > @@ -62,9 +62,9 @@ struct proc_dir_entry {
> > umode_t mode;
> > u8 namelen;
> > #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> > -#define SIZEOF_PDE_INLINE_NAME (192-139)
> > +#defin
On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 08:19:49PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> +++ b/fs/proc/internal.h
> @@ -48,8 +48,8 @@ struct proc_dir_entry {
> const struct seq_operations *seq_ops;
> int (*single_show)(struct seq_file *, void *);
> };
> - unsigned int state_size;
>
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 05:47:47PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Changes since V1:
> - open code proc_create_data to avoid setting not fully initialized
>entries live
> - use unsigned int for state_size
Need this to maintain sizeof(struct proc_dir_entry):
Otherwise ACK fs/proc/ part.
d
Note that your kernel hits the:
inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} usage.
swapper/0/0 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
(ptrval) (fs_reclaim){?.+.}, at: fs_reclaim_acquire+0x12/0x35
{HARDIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
fs_reclaim_acquire
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 06:06:53PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 08:19:16AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > I want to ask if it is time to start using poorman function overloading
> > > > with _b_c_e(). There are millions of allocation functions for example,
> > > >
We currently have hundreds of proc files that implement plain, read-only
seq_file based interfaces. This series consolidates them using new
procfs helpers that take the seq_operations or simple show callback
directly.
A git tree is available at:
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git pro
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 08:19:16AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > I want to ask if it is time to start using poorman function overloading
> > > with _b_c_e(). There are millions of allocation functions for example,
> > > all slightly difference, and people will add more. Seeing /proc interfaces
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:23:04 +0200 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 09:57:50PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git proc_create
> >
> >
> > I want to ask if it is time to start using poorman function overloading
> > with _b_c_e().
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 09:57:50PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git proc_create
>
>
> I want to ask if it is time to start using poorman function overloading
> with _b_c_e(). There are millions of allocation functions for example,
> all slightly dif
> git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git proc_create
I want to ask if it is time to start using poorman function overloading
with _b_c_e(). There are millions of allocation functions for example,
all slightly difference, and people will add more. Seeing /proc interfaces
doubled like this
We currently have hundreds of proc files that implement plain, read-only
seq_file based interfaces. This series consolidates them using new
procfs helpers that take the seq_operations or simple show callback
directly.
A git tree is available at:
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git pro
14 matches
Mail list logo
