On 2019/4/18 21:00, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:01 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 14:32:48 +0800 Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> The architecture specific information of the running processes could >>>> be useful to the userland. Add support to examine process architecture >>>> specific information externally. >>> >>> The implementation looks just fine to me. Have you had any feedback on >>> the overall desirability of adding this feature? >> >> I think I've been the most outspoken, and my not-all-that-strong >> opinion is that I don't really like it. /proc/PID/status is already a >> bit of a mess, and I don't think we really want it to be a mess that >> is different on different architectures. Hence my suggestion of >> /proc/PID/x86_status instead. Or we could do /proc/PID/arch_status, I > > arch_status looks like the right thing to do. Thanks Andy and Thomas, let me change the patch to use arch_status instead.
