On Sun, 2021-02-21 at 16:52 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 01:32:50AM -0500, Luo Longjun wrote:
> >
> >
> > @@ -2844,7 +2845,13 @@ static void lock_get_status(struct seq_file *f, struct file_lock *fl,
> > if (fl->fl_file != NULL)
> > inode = locks_inode(fl->fl_file);
> >
> >
> > - seq_printf(f, "%lld:%s ", id, pfx);
> > + seq_printf(f, "%lld: ", id);
> > + for (i = 1; i < repeat; i++)
> > + seq_puts(f, " ");
> > +
> > + if (repeat)
> > + seq_printf(f, "%s", pfx);
>
> RTFCStandard(printf, %*s), please
>
> > +static int __locks_show(struct seq_file *f, struct file_lock *fl, int level)
> > +{
> > + struct locks_iterator *iter = f->private;
> > + struct file_lock *bfl;
> > +
> > + lock_get_status(f, fl, iter->li_pos, "-> ", level);
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry(bfl, &fl->fl_blocked_requests, fl_blocked_member)
> > + __locks_show(f, bfl, level + 1);
>
> Er... What's the maximal depth, again? Kernel stack is very much finite...
Ooof, good point. I don't think there is a maximal depth on the tree
itself. If you do want to do something like this, then you'd need to
impose a hard limit on the recursion somehow.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
