Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] proc: Add struct mount & struct super_block addr in
 lx-mounts command
To:     Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
        Kieran Bingham <kbingham@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <cover.1597721575.git.riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
 <af4d266dd2d6b45403feca45395e3146a6f497cd.1597721575.git.riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
 <3babefe6-8784-dd9a-75ca-bb6ecff3106c@siemens.com>
From:   Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:57:57 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3babefe6-8784-dd9a-75ca-bb6ecff3106c@siemens.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20200818072758.88EF9A4062@b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 8/18/20 11:07 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 18.08.20 06:04, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
>> This is many times found useful while debugging some FS related issue.
>>
>> <e.g. output>
>>        mount          super_block      fstype devname pathname options
>> 0xffff888a0bfa4b40 0xffff888a0bfc1000 rootfs none / rw   0 0
>> 0xffff888a02c065c0 0xffff8889fcf65000 ext4 /dev/root / rw  ,relatime 0 0
>> 0xffff8889fc8cc040 0xffff888a0bb51000 devtmpfs devtmpfs /dev rw  ,relatime 0 0
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   scripts/gdb/linux/proc.py | 15 +++++++--------
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/scripts/gdb/linux/proc.py b/scripts/gdb/linux/proc.py
>> index 6a56bba233a9..c16fab981bdd 100644
>> --- a/scripts/gdb/linux/proc.py
>> +++ b/scripts/gdb/linux/proc.py
>> @@ -167,6 +167,9 @@ values of that process namespace"""
>>           if not namespace:
>>               raise gdb.GdbError("No namespace for current process")
>>   
>> +        gdb.write("{:^18} {:^15} {:>9} {} {} options\n".format(
>> +                  "mount", "super_block", "fstype", "devname", "pathname"))
>> +
>>           for vfs in lists.list_for_each_entry(namespace['list'],
>>                                                mount_ptr_type, "mnt_list"):
>>               devname = vfs['mnt_devname'].string()
>> @@ -190,14 +193,10 @@ values of that process namespace"""
>>               m_flags = int(vfs['mnt']['mnt_flags'])
>>               rd = "ro" if (s_flags & constants.LX_SB_RDONLY) else "rw"
>>   
>> -            gdb.write(
>> -                "{} {} {} {}{}{} 0 0\n"
>> -                .format(devname,
>> -                        pathname,
>> -                        fstype,
>> -                        rd,
>> -                        info_opts(FS_INFO, s_flags),
>> -                        info_opts(MNT_INFO, m_flags)))
>> +            gdb.write("{} {} {} {} {} {} {} {} 0 0\n".format(
>> +                      vfs.format_string(), superblock.format_string(), fstype,
>> +                      devname, pathname, rd, info_opts(FS_INFO, s_flags),
>> +                      info_opts(MNT_INFO, m_flags)))
> 
> The last three format elements should not be space-separated. The effect
> can even be seen in your example above.

yes, agreed. Will fix it in next version.

-ritesh