[Cyrill Gorcunov - Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:41:09PM +0300] | [Cyrill Gorcunov - Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:26:07PM +0300] | | [Alexey Dobriyan - Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 09:48:37PM +0300] | | ... | | | > Hi Stephen, | | | > | | | > thanks for catching this. Until I miss something -- | | | > s_fs_info for /proc is struct pid_namespace* right? | | | > So maybe_get_net will convert it to net*, which is | | | > not right I guess. On the other hand -- and PDE, and | | | > PDE_NET is defined in proc_fs.h regardless if CONIG_PROC_FS | | | > is turned on/off. Confused... | | | > | | | > (to be fair -- this maybe_get_net(PDE_NET(PDE(inode))) is | | | > taken from proc_net.c:get_proc_net, but to eliminate #ifdef | | | > I reimplemented it, which is not good too -- maybe I've been | | | > to put get_proc_net into some header, Eric?) | | | | | | PDE_NET here is bogus. you should use seq_open_net/seq_release_net. | | | See how other code does this, plenty of examples. | | | | | | | The question is not in examples, I saw that code. | | There is some problem with seq_open_net/seq_release_net -- | | I don't need additional private data for sequential files, | | all I need is just a pointer (ie -- seq_file.private) which | | is already allocated for seq_file structure itself. So | | Alexey, why should I use seq_open_net then and ask for | | additional memory which I don't need? (side note: | | actually get_net/put_net is really needed here indeed). | | | | - Cyrill - | | On the other hand - Alexey could we 'teach' seq_open_net/seq_release_net | to handle 0 private size? So then I could be able to set | seq_file.private to NULL | and call seq_release_net without problems? | | - Cyrill - But if the only right way to play with this is to use seq_open/release_net then I will change the PPPoX code. Alexey? - Cyrill - -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
