On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 10:56:50PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 08:59:05AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > From: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Back in 2005, we merged a patch from Akamai that sped up /proc/$pid/maps > > by using f_version to stash the user virtual address that we'd just > > displayed. That wasn't necessary; we can just use the private *ppos for > > the same purpose. There have also been some other odd choices made over > > the years that use the seq_file infrastructure in some non-idiomatic ways. > > > > Tested by using 'dd' with various different 'bs=' parameters to check that > > calling ->start, ->stop and ->next at various offsets work as expected. > > /proc part looks OK, I only ask to include this description into first > patch, so it doesn't get lost. Often 0/N patch is the most interesting > part of a series. I'm perfectly fine with this justification for the patch series being lost. I think this is the least interesting part of what I wrote. And will be the least interesting part for future researchers ... "Why did this code get converted to behave exactly the same way as all the other code" isn't really an interesting question.
