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

[Pavel Emelyanov]

On 09/29/2010 03:52 PM, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> 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.

No. If you lseek back it calls the locks_start which should reset the
counter, and then will call locks_next.

Can you try out my proposal and check whether it really works as expected?

Thanks,
Pavel
--
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/