[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1HWKjO-0005FW-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:05:34 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: pavel@....cz
CC: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] add file position info to proc
> > > > > For each fd the information is provided in the following format:
> > > > >
> > > > > pos: 1234
> > > > > flags: 0100002
> > > >
> > > > Octal? Maybe we should use more traditional hex here?
> >
> > It's octal in <fcntl.h>, so it's easier for a human to read.
> >
> > > Good point. The O_foo flags are per-arch, so this field has the potential
> > > to be subtly different on different architectures, which is unpleasing.
> > >
> > > > Or even list flags by name?
> > >
> > > urg. Simple enough to do (lookup table, please). But is it worth it?
> > > Perhaps just remove that field?
> >
> > I wouldn't mind. But leaving it to an application or for a human to
> > sort out is OK I guess. There are lots of non-portable numbers in
> > proc.
>
> Hmm, I do not think we want non-portable numbers in proc. What are
> other examples?
Signal masks in PID/status for example. I'm sure there are others.
Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists