Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 5 May 2008 01:25:37 +0800 | From | "Bryan Wu" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] [vfs/proc] task_nommu: fix compile failing bug because of spilt file.h |
| |
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 11:12:55PM +0800, Bryan Wu wrote: > > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_nommu.c b/fs/proc/task_nommu.c > > index 6cba820..987bc69 100644 > > --- a/fs/proc/task_nommu.c > > +++ b/fs/proc/task_nommu.c > > @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ > > > > #include <linux/mm.h> > > #include <linux/file.h> > > +#include <linux/fdtable.h> > > #include <linux/mount.h> > > #include <linux/ptrace.h> > > #include <linux/seq_file.h> > > Well... I see what it's trying to do, but it's a bullshit. Look: it's from > if (current->files && atomic_read(¤t->files->count) > 1) > sbytes += kobjsize(current->files); > else > bytes += kobjsize(current->files); > Now, what we really have is size of current->files (fixed and not too large) > + if descriptor table is too large to be embedded, > size of current->files->fdt > size of current->files->fdt->fd > size of current->files->fdt->open_fds/->close_on_exec > And the second term there can be *large*, so if we are really serious about > taking descriptor table footprint into account, we'd better take care of > that too. I'm not sure that we want to, though - note that we do that only > on nommu targets... > > So what's that code really trying to achieve? >
Wow, my patch is just to kill the compile error, I did not notice this large size issue here. I'd like to improve this code later.
Thanks -Bryan
| |