lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-05 15:41    [W:0.685 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site