Re: [PATCH] procfs: fix numbering in /proc/locks

[Jerome Marchand]

On 09/29/2010 01:43 PM, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>> Good point. My implementation is definitely wrong. But I'm afraid that
>> moving the increment in locks_next() won't help either. It will fail when
>> a program do something more than just read the file sequentially (use
>> of lseek() for instance). We need a better way to keep track of the
>> current position in the list.
> 
> The seq files core implementation knows about the lseek and
> calls the seq_ops callbacks properly.
> 

Yes, but if read a few lines and then lseek() back. I'm afraid it will call
a few more locks_next() function and thus increase the counter again.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/