From: Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]>
Based on our previous discussion https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/10/462 we came to
agree on deprecating the current /proc/locks in favor of a more extensible interface.
The new /proc/lockinfo file exports similar information - except instead of maj:min the
device name is shown - and entries are formated like those in /proc/cpuinfo, allowing us
to add new entries without breaking userspace.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt | 9 +++
fs/locks.c | 109 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt b/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
index a0ffac0..1c5e14b 100644
--- a/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
+++ b/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
@@ -524,3 +524,12 @@ Files: arch/arm/mach-at91/at91cap9.c
Why: The code is not actively maintained and platforms are now hard to find.
Who: Nicolas Ferre <[email protected]>
Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]>
+
+---------------------------
+
+What: /proc/locks
+When: 2014
+Why: The current /proc/locks file does not allow modifying entries as it breaks
+ userspace (most notably lslk(8)). A new /proc/lockinfo interface replaces
+ this file in a more extendable format (lines per entry), like /proc/cpuinfo.
+Who: Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]>
diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index 637694b..f7b27fe 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -112,6 +112,9 @@
* Leases and LOCK_MAND
* Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>, June, 2000.
* Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>, June, 2000.
+ *
+ * Deprecated /proc/locks in favor of /proc/lockinfo
+ * Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]>, February, 2012.
*/
#include <linux/capability.h>
@@ -2156,6 +2159,10 @@ static void lock_get_status(struct seq_file *f, struct file_lock *fl,
struct inode *inode = NULL;
unsigned int fl_pid;
+ /* deprecated, see Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt */
+ printk_once(KERN_WARNING "%s (%d): /proc/locks is deprecated please use /proc/lockinfo instead.\n",
+ current->comm, task_pid_nr(current));
+
if (fl->fl_nspid)
fl_pid = pid_vnr(fl->fl_nspid);
else
@@ -2199,15 +2206,10 @@ static void lock_get_status(struct seq_file *f, struct file_lock *fl,
: (fl->fl_type & F_WRLCK) ? "WRITE" : "READ ");
}
if (inode) {
-#ifdef WE_CAN_BREAK_LSLK_NOW
- seq_printf(f, "%d %s:%ld ", fl_pid,
- inode->i_sb->s_id, inode->i_ino);
-#else
/* userspace relies on this representation of dev_t ;-( */
seq_printf(f, "%d %02x:%02x:%ld ", fl_pid,
MAJOR(inode->i_sb->s_dev),
MINOR(inode->i_sb->s_dev), inode->i_ino);
-#endif
} else {
seq_printf(f, "%d <none>:0 ", fl_pid);
}
@@ -2275,9 +2277,106 @@ static const struct file_operations proc_locks_operations = {
.release = seq_release_private,
};
+static void lockinfo_get_status(struct seq_file *f, struct file_lock *fl,
+ loff_t id)
+{
+ struct inode *inode = NULL;
+ unsigned int fl_pid;
+
+ if (fl->fl_nspid)
+ fl_pid = pid_vnr(fl->fl_nspid);
+ else
+ fl_pid = fl->fl_pid;
+
+ if (fl->fl_file != NULL)
+ inode = fl->fl_file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
+
+ if (IS_POSIX(fl)) {
+ seq_printf(f, "Personality:\t %s\n",
+ (fl->fl_flags & FL_ACCESS) ? "ACCESS" : "POSIX ");
+ seq_printf(f, "Type:\t\t %s\n",
+ (!inode) ? "*NOINODE*" : mandatory_lock(inode)
+ ? "MANDATORY" : "ADVISORY ");
+ } else if (IS_FLOCK(fl)) {
+ seq_printf(f, "Personality:\t FLOCK\n");
+ seq_printf(f, "Type:\t\t %s\n",
+ (fl->fl_type & LOCK_MAND) ? "MSNFS" : "ADVISORY");
+ } else if (IS_LEASE(fl)) {
+ seq_printf(f, "Personality:\t LEASE\n");
+ seq_printf(f, "Type:\t\t %s\n",
+ (lease_breaking(fl)) ? "BREAKING"
+ : (fl->fl_file) ? "ACTIVE" : "BREAKER");
+ } else {
+ seq_printf(f, "Personality:\t UNKNOWN\n");
+ seq_printf(f, "Type:\t\t UNKNOWN\n");
+ }
+
+ if (fl->fl_type & LOCK_MAND) {
+ seq_printf(f, "Access:\t\t %s\n",
+ (fl->fl_type & LOCK_READ)
+ ? (fl->fl_type & LOCK_WRITE) ? "RW " : "READ "
+ : (fl->fl_type & LOCK_WRITE) ? "WRITE" : "NONE ");
+ } else {
+ seq_printf(f, "Access:\t\t %s\n",
+ (lease_breaking(fl))
+ ? (fl->fl_type & F_UNLCK) ? "UNLCK" : "READ "
+ : (fl->fl_type & F_WRLCK) ? "WRITE" : "READ ");
+ }
+
+ seq_printf(f, "PID:\t\t %d\n", fl_pid);
+
+ if (inode) {
+ seq_printf(f, "Device:\t\t %s\n", inode->i_sb->s_id);
+ seq_printf(f, "Inode:\t\t %ld\n", inode->i_ino);
+ }
+
+ if (IS_POSIX(fl)) {
+ if (fl->fl_end == OFFSET_MAX)
+ seq_printf(f, "Start-end:\t %Ld-EOF\n\n", fl->fl_start);
+ else
+ seq_printf(f, "Start-end:\t %Ld-%Ld\n\n", fl->fl_start, fl->fl_end);
+ } else {
+ seq_printf(f, "Start-end:\t 0-EOF\n\n");
+ }
+}
+
+static int lockinfo_show(struct seq_file *f, void *v)
+{
+ struct file_lock *fl, *bfl;
+
+ fl = list_entry(v, struct file_lock, fl_link);
+
+ lockinfo_get_status(f, fl, *((loff_t *)f->private));
+
+ list_for_each_entry(bfl, &fl->fl_block, fl_block)
+ lockinfo_get_status(f, bfl, *((loff_t *)f->private));
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static const struct seq_operations lockinfo_seq_operations = {
+ .start = locks_start,
+ .next = locks_next,
+ .stop = locks_stop,
+ .show = lockinfo_show,
+};
+
+static int lockinfo_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
+{
+ return seq_open_private(filp, &lockinfo_seq_operations, sizeof(loff_t));
+}
+
+static const struct file_operations proc_lockinfo_operations = {
+ .open = lockinfo_open,
+ .read = seq_read,
+ .llseek = seq_lseek,
+ .release = seq_release,
+};
+
static int __init proc_locks_init(void)
{
proc_create("locks", 0, NULL, &proc_locks_operations);
+ proc_create("lockinfo", 0, NULL, &proc_lockinfo_operations);
return 0;
}
module_init(proc_locks_init);
--
1.7.4.1
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:30:54 +0100
Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]>
>
> Based on our previous discussion https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/10/462 we came to
> agree on deprecating the current /proc/locks in favor of a more extensible interface.
> The new /proc/lockinfo file exports similar information - except instead of maj:min the
> device name is shown - and entries are formated like those in /proc/cpuinfo, allowing us
> to add new entries without breaking userspace.
Looks pretty good to me. A few things..
The above text doesn't really explain why we're adding the new procfs
file. What's wrong with the current format and why do we need a new
file? The basic rationale for changing the kernel is the most
important part of the whole patch, and it's missing!
Also, there's no description here of the new format. Ideally it will
be documented, perhaps in Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt. If not
that then it should at least be *fully* described in the changelog,
along with examples. Because if we can't clearly see the proposed
format, how can we review the patch?
I'd also like to see some discussion of the namespace side of things.
How do namespaces play with locks? Mainly pid namespaces, I guess. Is
it possible to look at the output and determine which namespace a lock
belongs to? Does that even make sense? I don't know what our
long-term plan is for namespaces-versus-locks, but whatever it is, this
new interface should be designed to work well with it.
Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]> writes:
> From: Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]>
>
> Based on our previous discussion https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/10/462 we came to
> agree on deprecating the current /proc/locks in favor of a more extensible interface.
> The new /proc/lockinfo file exports similar information - except instead of maj:min the
> device name is shown - and entries are formated like those in /proc/cpuinfo, allowing us
> to add new entries without breaking userspace.
You can't know the device name, attempt to say what you don't know seems
very dangerous. It may be reasonable to simply give the deivce number
and not split the device number into major/minor any more and I am
concerned about reality.
Andrew's question about the pid namespace is answered below.
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt | 9 +++
> fs/locks.c | 109 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 2 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt b/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
> index a0ffac0..1c5e14b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
> @@ -524,3 +524,12 @@ Files: arch/arm/mach-at91/at91cap9.c
> Why: The code is not actively maintained and platforms are now hard to find.
> Who: Nicolas Ferre <[email protected]>
> Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]>
> +
> +---------------------------
> +
> +What: /proc/locks
> +When: 2014
> +Why: The current /proc/locks file does not allow modifying entries as it breaks
> + userspace (most notably lslk(8)). A new /proc/lockinfo interface replaces
> + this file in a more extendable format (lines per entry), like /proc/cpuinfo.
> +Who: Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]>
This is a ancient file of long standing I really doubt that we can
safely remove it any time soon. Is there any good reason to want to
remove this file?
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index 637694b..f7b27fe 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -112,6 +112,9 @@
> * Leases and LOCK_MAND
> * Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>, June, 2000.
> * Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>, June, 2000.
> + *
> + * Deprecated /proc/locks in favor of /proc/lockinfo
> + * Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]>, February, 2012.
> */
>
> #include <linux/capability.h>
> @@ -2156,6 +2159,10 @@ static void lock_get_status(struct seq_file *f, struct file_lock *fl,
> struct inode *inode = NULL;
> unsigned int fl_pid;
>
> + /* deprecated, see Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt */
> + printk_once(KERN_WARNING "%s (%d): /proc/locks is deprecated please use /proc/lockinfo instead.\n",
> + current->comm, task_pid_nr(current));
> +
> if (fl->fl_nspid)
> fl_pid = pid_vnr(fl->fl_nspid);
Apparently this was overlooked. Sigh.
We need not to use pid_vnr but instead pid_nr_ns(sb->s_fs_info, fl->fl_nspid);
For using this outside of fs/proc/base.c this clearly needs a trivial
helper instead of raw s_fs_info access, but the point remains that
the proc filesystem when mounted has a pid namespace that it displays
everything relative too and /proc/locks should be the same.
> else
> @@ -2199,15 +2206,10 @@ static void lock_get_status(struct seq_file *f, struct file_lock *fl,
> : (fl->fl_type & F_WRLCK) ? "WRITE" : "READ ");
> }
> if (inode) {
> -#ifdef WE_CAN_BREAK_LSLK_NOW
> - seq_printf(f, "%d %s:%ld ", fl_pid,
> - inode->i_sb->s_id, inode->i_ino);
> -#else
> /* userspace relies on this representation of dev_t ;-( */
> seq_printf(f, "%d %02x:%02x:%ld ", fl_pid,
> MAJOR(inode->i_sb->s_dev),
> MINOR(inode->i_sb->s_dev), inode->i_ino);
> -#endif
> } else {
> seq_printf(f, "%d <none>:0 ", fl_pid);
> }
> @@ -2275,9 +2277,106 @@ static const struct file_operations proc_locks_operations = {
> .release = seq_release_private,
> };
>
> +static void lockinfo_get_status(struct seq_file *f, struct file_lock *fl,
> + loff_t id)
> +{
> + struct inode *inode = NULL;
> + unsigned int fl_pid;
> +
> + if (fl->fl_nspid)
> + fl_pid = pid_vnr(fl->fl_nspid);
We shouldn't copy the wrong definition for fl_pid from the old code but
should instead get this right.
> + else
> + fl_pid = fl->fl_pid;
> +
> + if (fl->fl_file != NULL)
> + inode = fl->fl_file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
> +
> + if (IS_POSIX(fl)) {
> + seq_printf(f, "Personality:\t %s\n",
> + (fl->fl_flags & FL_ACCESS) ? "ACCESS" : "POSIX ");
> + seq_printf(f, "Type:\t\t %s\n",
> + (!inode) ? "*NOINODE*" : mandatory_lock(inode)
> + ? "MANDATORY" : "ADVISORY ");
> + } else if (IS_FLOCK(fl)) {
> + seq_printf(f, "Personality:\t FLOCK\n");
> + seq_printf(f, "Type:\t\t %s\n",
> + (fl->fl_type & LOCK_MAND) ? "MSNFS" : "ADVISORY");
> + } else if (IS_LEASE(fl)) {
> + seq_printf(f, "Personality:\t LEASE\n");
> + seq_printf(f, "Type:\t\t %s\n",
> + (lease_breaking(fl)) ? "BREAKING"
> + : (fl->fl_file) ? "ACTIVE" : "BREAKER");
> + } else {
> + seq_printf(f, "Personality:\t UNKNOWN\n");
> + seq_printf(f, "Type:\t\t UNKNOWN\n");
> + }
> +
> + if (fl->fl_type & LOCK_MAND) {
> + seq_printf(f, "Access:\t\t %s\n",
> + (fl->fl_type & LOCK_READ)
> + ? (fl->fl_type & LOCK_WRITE) ? "RW " : "READ "
> + : (fl->fl_type & LOCK_WRITE) ? "WRITE" : "NONE ");
> + } else {
> + seq_printf(f, "Access:\t\t %s\n",
> + (lease_breaking(fl))
> + ? (fl->fl_type & F_UNLCK) ? "UNLCK" : "READ "
> + : (fl->fl_type & F_WRLCK) ? "WRITE" : "READ ");
> + }
> +
> + seq_printf(f, "PID:\t\t %d\n", fl_pid);
> +
> + if (inode) {
> + seq_printf(f, "Device:\t\t %s\n", inode->i_sb->s_id);
Hmm. The label on this is wrong. What if this comes from a
filesystem that is not block device based? I expect it is ok to print
sb->s_id here but it needs a less confusing label.
> + seq_printf(f, "Inode:\t\t %ld\n", inode->i_ino);
> + }
> +
> + if (IS_POSIX(fl)) {
> + if (fl->fl_end == OFFSET_MAX)
> + seq_printf(f, "Start-end:\t %Ld-EOF\n\n", fl->fl_start);
> + else
> + seq_printf(f, "Start-end:\t %Ld-%Ld\n\n", fl->fl_start, fl->fl_end);
> + } else {
> + seq_printf(f, "Start-end:\t 0-EOF\n\n");
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static int lockinfo_show(struct seq_file *f, void *v)
> +{
> + struct file_lock *fl, *bfl;
> +
> + fl = list_entry(v, struct file_lock, fl_link);
> +
> + lockinfo_get_status(f, fl, *((loff_t *)f->private));
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(bfl, &fl->fl_block, fl_block)
> + lockinfo_get_status(f, bfl, *((loff_t *)f->private));
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct seq_operations lockinfo_seq_operations = {
> + .start = locks_start,
> + .next = locks_next,
> + .stop = locks_stop,
> + .show = lockinfo_show,
> +};
> +
> +static int lockinfo_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> +{
> + return seq_open_private(filp, &lockinfo_seq_operations, sizeof(loff_t));
> +}
> +
> +static const struct file_operations proc_lockinfo_operations = {
> + .open = lockinfo_open,
> + .read = seq_read,
> + .llseek = seq_lseek,
> + .release = seq_release,
> +};
> +
> static int __init proc_locks_init(void)
> {
> proc_create("locks", 0, NULL, &proc_locks_operations);
> + proc_create("lockinfo", 0, NULL, &proc_lockinfo_operations);
> return 0;
> }
> module_init(proc_locks_init);
On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 16:38 -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > From: Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]>
> >
> > Based on our previous discussion https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/10/462 we came to
> > agree on deprecating the current /proc/locks in favor of a more extensible interface.
> > The new /proc/lockinfo file exports similar information - except instead of maj:min the
> > device name is shown - and entries are formated like those in /proc/cpuinfo, allowing us
> > to add new entries without breaking userspace.
>
> You can't know the device name, attempt to say what you don't know seems
> very dangerous. It may be reasonable to simply give the deivce number
> and not split the device number into major/minor any more and I am
> concerned about reality.
>
> Andrew's question about the pid namespace is answered below.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt | 9 +++
> > fs/locks.c | 109 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 2 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt b/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
> > index a0ffac0..1c5e14b 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
> > @@ -524,3 +524,12 @@ Files: arch/arm/mach-at91/at91cap9.c
> > Why: The code is not actively maintained and platforms are now hard to find.
> > Who: Nicolas Ferre <[email protected]>
> > Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]>
> > +
> > +---------------------------
> > +
> > +What: /proc/locks
> > +When: 2014
> > +Why: The current /proc/locks file does not allow modifying entries as it breaks
> > + userspace (most notably lslk(8)). A new /proc/lockinfo interface replaces
> > + this file in a more extendable format (lines per entry), like /proc/cpuinfo.
> > +Who: Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]>
>
> This is a ancient file of long standing I really doubt that we can
> safely remove it any time soon. Is there any good reason to want to
> remove this file?
>
> > diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> > index 637694b..f7b27fe 100644
> > --- a/fs/locks.c
> > +++ b/fs/locks.c
> > @@ -112,6 +112,9 @@
> > * Leases and LOCK_MAND
> > * Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>, June, 2000.
> > * Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>, June, 2000.
> > + *
> > + * Deprecated /proc/locks in favor of /proc/lockinfo
> > + * Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]>, February, 2012.
> > */
> >
> > #include <linux/capability.h>
> > @@ -2156,6 +2159,10 @@ static void lock_get_status(struct seq_file *f, struct file_lock *fl,
> > struct inode *inode = NULL;
> > unsigned int fl_pid;
> >
> > + /* deprecated, see Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt */
> > + printk_once(KERN_WARNING "%s (%d): /proc/locks is deprecated please use /proc/lockinfo instead.\n",
> > + current->comm, task_pid_nr(current));
> > +
> > if (fl->fl_nspid)
> > fl_pid = pid_vnr(fl->fl_nspid);
>
> Apparently this was overlooked. Sigh.
>
> We need not to use pid_vnr but instead pid_nr_ns(sb->s_fs_info, fl->fl_nspid);
>
> For using this outside of fs/proc/base.c this clearly needs a trivial
> helper instead of raw s_fs_info access, but the point remains that
> the proc filesystem when mounted has a pid namespace that it displays
> everything relative too and /proc/locks should be the same.
>
> > else
> > @@ -2199,15 +2206,10 @@ static void lock_get_status(struct seq_file *f, struct file_lock *fl,
> > : (fl->fl_type & F_WRLCK) ? "WRITE" : "READ ");
> > }
> > if (inode) {
> > -#ifdef WE_CAN_BREAK_LSLK_NOW
> > - seq_printf(f, "%d %s:%ld ", fl_pid,
> > - inode->i_sb->s_id, inode->i_ino);
> > -#else
> > /* userspace relies on this representation of dev_t ;-( */
> > seq_printf(f, "%d %02x:%02x:%ld ", fl_pid,
> > MAJOR(inode->i_sb->s_dev),
> > MINOR(inode->i_sb->s_dev), inode->i_ino);
> > -#endif
> > } else {
> > seq_printf(f, "%d <none>:0 ", fl_pid);
> > }
> > @@ -2275,9 +2277,106 @@ static const struct file_operations proc_locks_operations = {
> > .release = seq_release_private,
> > };
> >
> > +static void lockinfo_get_status(struct seq_file *f, struct file_lock *fl,
> > + loff_t id)
> > +{
> > + struct inode *inode = NULL;
> > + unsigned int fl_pid;
> > +
> > + if (fl->fl_nspid)
> > + fl_pid = pid_vnr(fl->fl_nspid);
>
> We shouldn't copy the wrong definition for fl_pid from the old code but
> should instead get this right.
Will correct.
>
> > + else
> > + fl_pid = fl->fl_pid;
> > +
> > + if (fl->fl_file != NULL)
> > + inode = fl->fl_file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
> > +
> > + if (IS_POSIX(fl)) {
> > + seq_printf(f, "Personality:\t %s\n",
> > + (fl->fl_flags & FL_ACCESS) ? "ACCESS" : "POSIX ");
> > + seq_printf(f, "Type:\t\t %s\n",
> > + (!inode) ? "*NOINODE*" : mandatory_lock(inode)
> > + ? "MANDATORY" : "ADVISORY ");
> > + } else if (IS_FLOCK(fl)) {
> > + seq_printf(f, "Personality:\t FLOCK\n");
> > + seq_printf(f, "Type:\t\t %s\n",
> > + (fl->fl_type & LOCK_MAND) ? "MSNFS" : "ADVISORY");
> > + } else if (IS_LEASE(fl)) {
> > + seq_printf(f, "Personality:\t LEASE\n");
> > + seq_printf(f, "Type:\t\t %s\n",
> > + (lease_breaking(fl)) ? "BREAKING"
> > + : (fl->fl_file) ? "ACTIVE" : "BREAKER");
> > + } else {
> > + seq_printf(f, "Personality:\t UNKNOWN\n");
> > + seq_printf(f, "Type:\t\t UNKNOWN\n");
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (fl->fl_type & LOCK_MAND) {
> > + seq_printf(f, "Access:\t\t %s\n",
> > + (fl->fl_type & LOCK_READ)
> > + ? (fl->fl_type & LOCK_WRITE) ? "RW " : "READ "
> > + : (fl->fl_type & LOCK_WRITE) ? "WRITE" : "NONE ");
> > + } else {
> > + seq_printf(f, "Access:\t\t %s\n",
> > + (lease_breaking(fl))
> > + ? (fl->fl_type & F_UNLCK) ? "UNLCK" : "READ "
> > + : (fl->fl_type & F_WRLCK) ? "WRITE" : "READ ");
> > + }
> > +
> > + seq_printf(f, "PID:\t\t %d\n", fl_pid);
> > +
> > + if (inode) {
> > + seq_printf(f, "Device:\t\t %s\n", inode->i_sb->s_id);
>
> Hmm. The label on this is wrong. What if this comes from a
> filesystem that is not block device based? I expect it is ok to print
> sb->s_id here but it needs a less confusing label.
I think that even if its not a block based device, the "Device" label is
pretty obvious.
I'll send a v2 of this patch with the corrections and documenting the
new file in Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt
Thanks,
Davidlohr
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:38:27 -0800
[email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > From: Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]>
> >
> > Based on our previous discussion https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/10/462 we came to
> > agree on deprecating the current /proc/locks in favor of a more extensible interface.
> > The new /proc/lockinfo file exports similar information - except instead of maj:min the
> > device name is shown - and entries are formated like those in /proc/cpuinfo, allowing us
> > to add new entries without breaking userspace.
>
> You can't know the device name, attempt to say what you don't know seems
> very dangerous. It may be reasonable to simply give the deivce number
> and not split the device number into major/minor any more and I am
> concerned about reality.
I don't think we've ever been told any *reason* for switching from
major:minor to device-name. This is a problem.
And yes, major:minor reliably and uniquely identifies the device. I'm
not sure that the human-readable string which is largely a convenience
thing is as reliable as this.