Re: [PATCH 1/1] procfs: expose umask in stat and status

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Pierre,

On Sat, 5 May 2012 13:57:47 +0200 Pierre Carrier <pierre@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Why not use "Umask:\t%#o\n" ? that way you don't get two zeros if the
> > umask is zero.
> 
> Because of ignorance and laziness.

:-)

> Just tried "%#o" with v3.4-rc5-182-g71eb557 and got equivalent results
> to "0%o", including 0->"00".

That looks like a misimplementation (i.e. a bug) :-)

> So it's agreeably better, even we just don't see it yet.

Yep, then if someone fixes the bug it will look nicer.

> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > It would be good to tell us why we need this, of course.
> 
> Oops. I don't have a killer argument.
> 
> We happened to look for the information for a running service and
> couldn't think of a simple, non-invasive solution.
> It feels like it'd be useful to expose it.

Who is "we"?  i.e. what is the application that would be using this?

i.e. assume I know nothing (which is not so far from the truth :-)) and
tell me why I would want this in my kernel.  Then put that in the commit
message.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature