On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 5:38 PM Li, Aubrey <aubrey.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2019/4/8 1:34, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 12:32 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Aubrey Li wrote: > >> > >>> The architecture specific information of the running processes could > >>> be useful to the userland. Add support to examine process architecture > >>> specific information externally. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> This really lacks > >> > >> Cc: Linux API <linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Cc'ed now. > >> > > > > I certainly understand why you want to expose this info, but would it > > make more sense to instead add an arch_status file in /proc with > > architecture-specific info? Or maybe an x86_status field for x86 > > status, etc. > > > > I tried this, but no other architecture showed interest in arch_status > under /proc. > Why is that a problem? It could exist on x86 and not exist on other arches until needed.
