James Pearson <[email protected]> writes: > H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> Guy Streeter wrote: >>>On 6/1/06, James Pearson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>H. Peter Anvin wrote: [...skipped...] >>>>The following patch is based on the /proc/PID/mem code appears to work fine. >>>This thread has gone stale. The PAGE_SIZE limit still exists. Is this >>>solution acceptable? >> Can we avoid the code duplication? > There isn't that much that is duplicated - and there are also bits of > the /proc/PID/mem code that are not needed in this case, so I'm not > really sure if it is worth doing. > > I did submit a patch a few months ago - see: > <http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117862109623007&w=2> Yep, I'm sure we should not reuse something from mem part, there are some insignificant code duplicating. If we will try to avoid this, it will complicate code and does not bring any advantage. -- Anton Arapov, <[email protected]>
Attachment:
pgpZSNKlkFSuu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- Re: 4096 byte limit to /proc/PID/environ ?
- From: "Guy Streeter" <[email protected]>
- Re: 4096 byte limit to /proc/PID/environ ?
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: 4096 byte limit to /proc/PID/environ ?
- From: James Pearson <[email protected]>
- Re: 4096 byte limit to /proc/PID/environ ?
- Prev by Date: bogomips discrepancy on Intel Core2 Quad CPU
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 0/3] vmcoreinfo support for dump filtering
- Previous by thread: Re: 4096 byte limit to /proc/PID/environ ?
- Next by thread: Re: 4096 byte limit to /proc/PID/environ ?
- Index(es):
 |