[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 23:00:54 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Pierre Carrier <pierre@...tify.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] procfs: expose umask in stat and status
Hi Pierre,
On Sat, 5 May 2012 13:57:47 +0200 Pierre Carrier <pierre@...tify.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > Why not use "Umask:\t%#o\n" ? that way you don't get two zeros if the
> > umask is zero.
>
> Because of ignorance and laziness.
:-)
> Just tried "%#o" with v3.4-rc5-182-g71eb557 and got equivalent results
> to "0%o", including 0->"00".
That looks like a misimplementation (i.e. a bug) :-)
> So it's agreeably better, even we just don't see it yet.
Yep, then if someone fixes the bug it will look nicer.
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > It would be good to tell us why we need this, of course.
>
> Oops. I don't have a killer argument.
>
> We happened to look for the information for a running service and
> couldn't think of a simple, non-invasive solution.
> It feels like it'd be useful to expose it.
Who is "we"? i.e. what is the application that would be using this?
i.e. assume I know nothing (which is not so far from the truth :-)) and
tell me why I would want this in my kernel. Then put that in the commit
message.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists