Re: [PATCH] procfs: use more apprioriate types when dumping
/proc/N/stat
[Posted March 28, 2012 by corbet]
| From: |
| Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
| To: |
| Jan Engelhardt <jengelh-AT-medozas.de> |
| Subject: |
| Re: [PATCH] procfs: use more apprioriate types when dumping
/proc/N/stat |
| Date: |
| Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:57:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID: |
| <20120322145712.d9efbc34.akpm@linux-foundation.org> |
| Cc: |
| gorcunov-AT-openvz.org, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org |
| Archive‑link: | |
Article |
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:12:16 +0100
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de> wrote:
> * field 14, 15: clock_t is a long
> * field 18, 19: task_nice/task_prio return int
> * field 24: get_mm_rss returns unsigned long
> * field 36, 37: always 0
>
> ...
>
> --- a/fs/proc/array.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/array.c
> @@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ static int do_task_stat(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
> struct pid *pid, struct task_struct *task, int whole)
> {
> unsigned long vsize, eip, esp, wchan = ~0UL;
> - long priority, nice;
> + int priority, nice;
> int tty_pgrp = -1, tty_nr = 0;
> sigset_t sigign, sigcatch;
> char state;
> @@ -463,8 +463,8 @@ static int do_task_stat(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
> start_time = nsec_to_clock_t(start_time);
>
> seq_printf(m, "%d (%s) %c %d %d %d %d %d %u %lu \
> -%lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %ld %ld %ld %ld %d 0 %llu %lu %ld %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu \
> -%lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %d %d %u %u %llu %lu %ld %lu %lu %lu\n",
> +%lu %lu %lu %ld %ld %ld %ld %d %d %d 0 %llu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu \
> +%lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu 0 0 %d %d %u %u %llu %lu %ld %lu %lu %lu\n",
> pid_nr_ns(pid, ns),
> tcomm,
> state,
> @@ -503,8 +503,6 @@ static int do_task_stat(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
> sigign .sig[0] & 0x7fffffffUL,
> sigcatch .sig[0] & 0x7fffffffUL,
> wchan,
> - 0UL,
> - 0UL,
> task->exit_signal,
> task_cpu(task),
> task->rt_priority,
When trying to review this I went completely crosseyed then fell on
the floor. Which is why this code got ripped out and redone in
linux-next, against which I'll ask you to redo the patch, please.
