On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:38:33AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 11:32 -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 10:30:32AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 10:13 -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 09:19:06PM +0800, Huaitong Han wrote: > > > > > This patch adds a line break for proc mb_groups display. > > > > > > Using 2 lines for output might break any existing users. > > > > > > Are there any? > > > > It's a multiline file if you have more than one blockgroup; this just makes > > it > > so that you don't have to special-case BG 0. > > And existing scripts might do that now and might fail > to do properly after this change.
Or they might have sed -e 's/]#0/]\n#0/g' in which case they won't be affected. > > IOW: mb_groups scripts already had to parse multiple lines, and most likely > > any > > script parsing it would inject a newline after the header. > > I've no dog in this fight really. I just wanted to make > it clear that this could cause existing scripts to fail. > > proc output is supposed to be unchanging except maybe > adding new fields to existing lines. > > Your choice. Ted's, really. I have no idea which scripts do with various per-fs /proc files. Usually poking in mb_groups is only done as part of failure report data collection to see what's mucked up the fs this time. Anyway, I'll defer to the maintainer. :) --D > > cheers, Joe
