Re: Document POSIX MQ /proc/sys/fs/mqueue files
From: Davidlohr Bueso
Date: Tue Sep 30 2014 - 13:35:19 EST
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 12:12 +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Doug,
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 11:10 +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >> Hello Doug, David,
> >> I think you two were the last ones to make significant
> >> changes to the semantics of the files in /proc/sys/fs/mqueue,
> >> so I wonder if you (or anyone else who is willing) might
> >> take a look at the man page text below that I've written
> >> (for the mq_overview(7) page) to describe past and current
> >> reality, and let me know of improvements of corrections.
> >> By the way, Doug, your commit ce2d52cc1364 appears to have
> >> changed/broken the semantics of the files in the /dev/mqueue
> >> filesystem. Formerly, the QSIZE field in these files showed
> >> the number of bytes of real user data in all of the queued
> >> messages. After that commit, QSIZE now includes kernel
> >> overhead bytes, which does not seem very useful for user
> >> space. Was that change intentional? I see no mention of the
> >> change in the commit message, so it sounds like it was not
> >> intended.
> > That change didn't come in that commit. That commit modified it, but
> > didn't introduce it.
> (Which commit was it then? d6629859b36 ?)
By just looking at msg_insert and msg_get, I think so, yeah.
> > Now, was it intentional? Yes. Is it valuable, useful? That depends on
> > your perspective.
> Thanks for the detailed explanation below. However, I don't understand
> why the (useful) work that you describe below necessitated a change in
> the QSIZE value that was exposed to user space. Surely the necessary
> changes could have been done internally while still leaving QSIZE to
> expose the same value it ever did? As things stand now (and unless I
> am missing something), QSIZE exposes an implementation-specific
> internal value that has little meaning or value to user space. And,
> it's unfortunate that the commit message made no mention of the fact
> that there was an ABI change here.
Agreed. And this needs to be changed back -- *although* there have been
0 bug reports afaict. Probably similarly to what we did with the
queues_max issue: stable since v3.5. Doug, any thoughts?
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/