Hi Rob, I think the main purpose of the original patch is to show mounts whose stat()/statvfs() failed. For example, an under-privileged user may be able to read /proc/mounts but lack the permission to stat(vfs) the mount point, so showing "-" is a way of saying "I know this XXX device is being mount on YYY mount point, however for whatever reason I lack the means to get usage information from the filesystem".
So I think 5f5f97f215bb accomplishes what the original change wants by not skipping 0:0 device at all and gives "st_dev == 0" a special meaning of "stat(mount point) failed". The only question I have left, is it guaranteed that st_dev must be zero or left unchanged when stat() fails? Or do we need to do something like, "if stat() / statvfs() fails, ensure st_dev is zero" in portability.c to ensure the caller knows that stat(mount point) failed? On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 3:02 AM Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> wrote: > On 2/14/21 6:17 AM, Rob Landley wrote: > > On 2/13/21 5:45 PM, Rob Landley wrote: > > Part of what's confusing me here is you're still skipping device 0:0, > which is a > > "should never happen" entry? (Even ramfs is only major 0 with minor > incrementing > > per-mount I think?) > > > > Can we just change to print the - - - - entries for a device 0 0 and not > have to > > change the lib plumbing for the extra flag? Or am I missing something? > > Tell me if commit 5f5f97f215bb implements what you want? > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > Toybox mailing list > Toybox@lists.landley.net > http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net > -- Yi-yo Chiang Software Engineer yochi...@google.com
_______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list Toybox@lists.landley.net http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
