On Thursday 17 March 2016, Benno Schulenberg wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016, at 18:18, Ruediger Meier wrote: > > Could you show us > > $ cat /proc/sysvipc/shm > key shmid perms size cpid lpid nattch uid gid cuid cgid atime dtime ctime > 0 131072 1600 393216 1409 921 2 1000 1000 1000 1000 1458201259 0 1458201259 Ok, nowadays we have just two more columns at the end: "rss" and "swap". Could be fixed probably. We have also still fallback code for the old syscall which is used if there is no /proc at all. Actually it was on my imaginary TODO list to review all /proc scanf code for robustness against future column additions. > > > Generally I think we should make a statement about "what is the > > minimum kernel version" for util-linux. > > A statement. And let the tests check the version and print > a warning in case it's too old. Actually a failed test is the best "warning" (based on facts rather than parsed version numbers): FAILED == "Stop! something is wrong with ul and your system." But IMO ok to give users a hint like "your kernel might be too old". This warning could be repeated when there are failed tests. On the other hand this reminds me about all these wrong >2.6 version checks, and why uname26 was invented :) > > Two years ago I decided for myself that > > I should fix bugs for newer kernels first. On the other hand 2.6.32 > > would have been worth to support because it was officially > > maintained from 2009 until last month! > > I'm not expecting you to fix things. It's just nice to put > things in a harsher environment and see how they hold up. :) > > I guess the kernel syscall does not return error thus our fallocate > > succeed but the file is empty. It's a kernel bug we can't fix. Or > > should we add a stat() call to validate the syscall? > > That sounds like a good idea: check, and double check. > > Benno -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
