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

[Jerome Marchand]

On 09/29/2010 01:56 PM, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> 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?
> 

OK. I didn't understand you meant to keep the reset in locks_start(). I'll
try that.

Jerome
--
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/