Re: [PATCH] locks: export device name

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:42:30 -0500
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > Perhaps safest would be to replace /proc/locks by another interface and
> > > deprecate this one.
> > 
> > If exporting the name in the current /proc/locks file is out of the
> > question, then IMHO I don't think it would be worth adding a new
> > interface just for such a small change.
> 
> OK.
> 
> If you want to just change this over, I guess the thing to do would be
> to stick something in feature-removal-schedule.txt saying "we'll switch
> this in 2 years" (or however long you think before there are
> realistically no more lslk users left), then do it then.
> 
> Switching to a new api would be better as we could warn users of the old
> api then.  Maybe it'd be worth it if there was some other change we'd
> been wanting to make?   Can't think of anything off the top of my head.
> 
> We may be adding more lock types--will lslk and lslocks handle that
> gracefully?

Adding a whole new interface is pretty attractive.  It lets us get it
right this time.  In particular, something which is extensible given
certain simple rules.  As we've learned, the current /proc/locks didn't
get that right!

We can eventually remove the old code - it may take longer than two
years, but whatever.  If we go this way, we should arrange for the
kernel to emit a warning (printk_once) into the logs the first time
someone accesses the old file.  This will help to prompt people to
migrate off the deprecated interface.  After a while, we can add a
config option to make the old interface go away.  Distros will start to
disable the feature.  Later, we zap it altogether.

--
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/