On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:38:27 -0800 ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxx> > > > > Based on our previous discussion https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/10/462 we came to > > agree on deprecating the current /proc/locks in favor of a more extensible interface. > > The new /proc/lockinfo file exports similar information - except instead of maj:min the > > device name is shown - and entries are formated like those in /proc/cpuinfo, allowing us > > to add new entries without breaking userspace. > > You can't know the device name, attempt to say what you don't know seems > very dangerous. It may be reasonable to simply give the deivce number > and not split the device number into major/minor any more and I am > concerned about reality. I don't think we've ever been told any *reason* for switching from major:minor to device-name. This is a problem. And yes, major:minor reliably and uniquely identifies the device. I'm not sure that the human-readable string which is largely a convenience thing is as reliable as this. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
