From: Ian Kent Subject: RE: mtab and procs not in sync? Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:03:26 +0800 (WST) Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: References: <482A3FA0050D21419C269D13989C61130435E236@lavender-fe.eng.netapp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: James Pearson , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BYDoh-0004w8-Q0 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:53:15 -0700 Received: from wombat.indigo.net.au ([202.0.185.19]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.30) id 1BYDoh-0007mS-31 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:53:15 -0700 To: "Lever, Charles" In-Reply-To: <482A3FA0050D21419C269D13989C61130435E236@lavender-fe.eng.netapp.com> Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Lever, Charles wrote: > i would guess that if seq_file is used, then /proc/mounts should be OK. > > i was looking at a RHEL AS 2.1 system last week that used the single > page I/O model for /proc/mounts, and it was definitely busted. We probably need to start talking versions, back ports and vendor kernels to get a clear picture of the situation here. Ian > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Pearson [mailto:james-p@moving-picture.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 11:05 AM > > To: Lever, Charles > > Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net > > Subject: Re: [NFS] mtab and procs not in sync? > > > > > > On a 2.4.26 kernel on x86 I can get /proc/mounts to go over > > 4K (over 8K > > with about 100 automounted file systems). > > > > Having a quick look through the kernel code I can see > > seq_file used in > > relation to proc_mounts_operations (fs/proc/base.c) - however > > as I don't > > pretend to understand the code, I can't say this is the case ... > > > > If 2.4.X does use seq_file, then is it safe to say > > /proc/mounts doesn't > > suffer from a truncation problem? > > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: GNOME Foundation Hackers Unite! GUADEC: The world's #1 Open Source Desktop Event. GNOME Users and Developers European Conference, 28-30th June in Norway http://2004/guadec.org _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs