lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] console: add /proc/consoles
On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 05:25:32PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 11/03/2010 05:22 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 05:16:11PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> On 11/03/2010 05:13 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 04:35:09PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >>>> It allows users to see what consoles are currently known to the system
> >>>> and with what flags.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is based on Werner's patch, the part about traversing fds was
> >>>> removed, the code was moved to kernel/printk.c, where consoles are
> >>>> handled and it makes more sense to me.
> >>>
> >>> Why kernel/printk.c? I don't think that makes sense, it's just a random
> >>> proc file, so why not put it into something like fs/proc/ instead?
> >>>
> >>> Does it rely on any functions in the printk.c file?
> >>
> >> No it doesn't. I will move it to fs/proc/ if that's preferred. I checked
> >> how VM proc stuff is handled and it was in in mm/, so I put this into
> >> kernel/...
> >>
> >> (Then it will depend on the console cleanup series which I sent few
> >> minutes ago...)
> >
> > That's fine, I can take those through my tree as well, as it makes sense
> > to do so.
>
> Actually where this code should be in fs/proc/? Most of the /proc/* is
> handled elsewhere (fs/ mm/ kernel/). The rest is handled in specialized
> fs/proc/FILE.c.

What's wrong with putting it into fs/proc/proc_tty.c? That seems like
the most logical thing to me...

thanks,

greg k-h


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-03 18:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site