Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 5 May 2012 23:00:54 +1000 | From | Stephen Rothwell <> | 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@spotify.com> wrote: > > On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.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@canb.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@canb.auug.org.au [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |