[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <41C709B0-476E-4DE8-B973-1F7237102708@dilger.ca>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 14:12:15 -0700
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Huaitong Han <huaitong.han@...el.com>, tytso@....edu,
adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: add a line break for proc mb_groups display
On Feb 3, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:38:33AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 11:32 -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 10:30:32AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 10:13 -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 09:19:06PM +0800, Huaitong Han wrote:
>>>>>> This patch adds a line break for proc mb_groups display.
>>>>
>>>> Using 2 lines for output might break any existing users.
>>>>
>>>> Are there any?
>>>
>>> It's a multiline file if you have more than one blockgroup; this just makes it
>>> so that you don't have to special-case BG 0.
>>
>> And existing scripts might do that now and might fail
>> to do properly after this change.
>
> Or they might have sed -e 's/]#0/]\n#0/g' in which case they won't be affected.
I suspect that any scripts which handled this in the past probably didn't
even notice and just missed the bg=0 line at the end of the header. Users
looking at the output probably saw it line-wrapped by the terminal and
didn't notice either.
>>> IOW: mb_groups scripts already had to parse multiple lines, and most likely any
>>> script parsing it would inject a newline after the header.
>>
>> I've no dog in this fight really. I just wanted to make
>> it clear that this could cause existing scripts to fail.
>>
>> proc output is supposed to be unchanging except maybe
>> adding new fields to existing lines.
>>
>> Your choice.
>
> Ted's, really. I have no idea which scripts do with various per-fs /proc
> files. Usually poking in mb_groups is only done as part of failure report data
> collection to see what's mucked up the fs this time.
>
> Anyway, I'll defer to the maintainer. :)
I think it makes sense to accept the patch, since I doubt any scripts will be broken, and it is the "right thing to do" rather than perpetuate a bug.
Cheers, Andreas
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists