Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:23:07 -0700 | | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | | Subject | Re: [1/1][PATCH] nproc v2: netlink access to /proc information |
Greg, could you comment on this since there are some people having trouble figuring out what's going on with VM-related /proc/ fields for !CONFIG_MMU. Please forgive the top-posting, it made more sense to quote the text below in this instance.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 07:59:46AM +0200, Roger Luethi wrote: >> I agree with you that those specific fields should be offered for >> !CONFIG_MMU. However, if for some reason they cannot carry a value >> that fits the field description, they should not be offered at all. The >> ambiguity of having 0 mean either "0" or "this field is not available" >> is bad. Trying to read a specific field _can_ fail, and applications >> had better handle that case (it's still trivial compared to having to >> parse different /proc file layouts depending on the configuration).
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 11:18:00PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > Apart from doing something it's supposed to for !CONFIG_MMU and using > the internal kernel accounting I set up for the CONFIG_MMU=y case I'm > not very concerned about this. I have a vague notion there should > probably be some consistency with the /proc/ precedent but am not > particularly tied to it. We should probably ask Greg Ungerer (the > maintainer of the external MMU-less patches) about what he prefers > since it's likely we can't anticipate all of the !CONFIG_MMU concerns.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 07:59:46AM +0200, Roger Luethi wrote: >> The presumed wrong assumptions underlying broken tools of the future >> are not a good base for designing a new interface. My interest is in >> making it easy to write correct applications (or in fixing broken apps >> that won't work, say, on !CONFIG_MMU systems).
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 11:18:00PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > I don't really know what the approach to app compatibility used by > userspace for !CONFIG_MMU is; I'll refer you to Greg Ungerer as my > knowledge of the CONFIG_MMU usage models and/or whatever userspace > is used in tandem with it outside the VM's internals is rather scant. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |