From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965356AbXC0Wdf (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:33:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965360AbXC0Wdf (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:33:35 -0400 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:50497 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965356AbXC0Wdd (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:33:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:33:24 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] add file position info to proc Message-ID: <20070327223324.GB6752@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20070327212419.GA5817@ucw.cz> <20070327143629.9c8953db.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > > For each fd the information is provided in the following format: > > > > > > > > pos: 1234 > > > > flags: 0100002 > > > > > > Octal? Maybe we should use more traditional hex here? > > It's octal in , so it's easier for a human to read. > > > Good point. The O_foo flags are per-arch, so this field has the potential > > to be subtly different on different architectures, which is unpleasing. > > > > > Or even list flags by name? > > > > urg. Simple enough to do (lookup table, please). But is it worth it? > > Perhaps just remove that field? > > I wouldn't mind. But leaving it to an application or for a human to > sort out is OK I guess. There are lots of non-portable numbers in > proc. Hmm, I do not think we want non-portable numbers in proc. What are other examples? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html