Messages in this thread |  | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][RFC] Re: 2.4.15-pre5: /proc/cpuinfo broken | Date | 17 Nov 2001 11:54:44 -0800 |
| |
Followup to: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0111171359410.11475-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu> By author: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: > > > > > > Frankly, I'd prefer to try (b) before reverting to (a). Patch doing that > > > variant follows. Linus, your opinion? > > > > (d) make seq_file have my originally suggested "subposition" code. > > > > Ie make the X low bits of "pos" be the position in the record, with the > > high bits of "pos" being the current "record index" kind of thing. > > > > That makes lseek() happy. > > It will not help. lseek() in question is relative and crosses the > record boundary. I.e. we have > > n = read(fd, buf, ...); > /* process k bytes */ > lseek(fd, k-n, SEEK_CUR); > > and that will break just as the current variant does. It's not about > seek to remembered position - it's a relative seek to calculated offset. > Calculated from number of bytes returned by read(). >
We may really want to consider if we want /proc entries to be S_IFREG(). The closest equivalent I can think of is really a character device node (S_IFCHR) more so that S_IFIFO.
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <amsp@zytor.com> - 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/
|  |