Re: [PATCH] procfs: fix numbering in /proc/locks

[Pavel Emelyanov]

> Good point. My implementation is definitely wrong. But I'm afraid that
> moving the increment in locks_next() won't help either. It will fail when
> a program do something more than just read the file sequentially (use
> of lseek() for instance). We need a better way to keep track of the
> current position in the list.

The seq files core implementation knows about the lseek and
calls the seq_ops callbacks properly.

> Thanks,
> Jerome
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/