Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754300AbYKJIlo (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Nov 2008 03:41:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753961AbYKJIlf (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Nov 2008 03:41:35 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:38296 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750970AbYKJIlf (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Nov 2008 03:41:35 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:41:23 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alexey Dobriyan Cc: Ken Chen , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [patch] add /proc/pid/stack to dump task's stack trace Message-ID: <20081110084123.GE22392@elte.hu> References: <20081106203520.GD3578@elte.hu> <20081107003021.GA18666@google.com> <20081107004824.GA28780@x200.localdomain> <20081107074147.GA26607@elte.hu> <20081107075925.GA1825@elte.hu> <20081107082003.GA15800@x200.localdomain> <20081107083249.GD4435@elte.hu> <20081108121054.GG8354@elte.hu> <20081109180841.GB3127@x200.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081109180841.GB3127@x200.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE RBL: Envelope sender in blackholes.securitysage.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1099 Lines: 25 * Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 01:10:54PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Sidenote: it would still be nice if the procfs folks converted the > > old-style code there to the new seqfile APIs, before requiring > > everyone _else_ to follow those guidelines? > > For every existing non seqfile /proc file, there may be (and was > demonstrated) some userspace which is doing pread(2) on it and > seqfiles don't support pread currently. Obviously, no such userspace > exist for /proc/*/stack. ok, i then dont understand why we are advocating seqfile use, while seqfiles are inferior replacements in certain aspects (no pread(2) support). Adding pread(2) support would remove all doubt, and it could be converted all across the spectrum, eliminating any confusion about which facility to use, right? Ingo -- 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/