On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:29:35 +0530 Suresh Jayaraman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Based on the previous discussions and suggestion by Jeff on providing a way > to tell about compiled kernel config options, I wrote a simple patch. It seems > useful. But, feel free to ignore this patch if you think it is not.. > > From: Suresh Jayaraman <[email protected]> > Subject: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] cifs: show enabled features in /proc > > Here's a simple patch to show the compiled in CIFS features. This patch adds a > /proc file called "features" when read will show the features enabled in the > running kernel as shown below: > > $cat /proc/fs/cifs/features > # CIFS features enabled > dfs spnego fsc > > This provides a definitive way to tell what features are currently enabled. > This could be useful as a debugging information as well. > > Signed-off-by: Suresh Jayaraman <[email protected]> > Cc: Jeff Layton <[email protected]> > --- > fs/cifs/cifs_debug.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifs_debug.c b/fs/cifs/cifs_debug.c > index 4fce6e6..af5dbf7 100644 > --- a/fs/cifs/cifs_debug.c > +++ b/fs/cifs/cifs_debug.c > @@ -402,6 +402,7 @@ static const struct file_operations > cifs_multiuser_mount_proc_fops; > static const struct file_operations cifs_security_flags_proc_fops; > static const struct file_operations cifs_experimental_proc_fops; > static const struct file_operations cifs_linux_ext_proc_fops; > +static const struct file_operations cifs_feat_proc_fops; > > void > cifs_proc_init(void) > @@ -428,6 +429,8 @@ cifs_proc_init(void) > &cifs_security_flags_proc_fops); > proc_create("LookupCacheEnabled", 0, proc_fs_cifs, > &cifs_lookup_cache_proc_fops); > + proc_create("features", 0, proc_fs_cifs, > + &cifs_feat_proc_fops); > } > > void > @@ -448,6 +451,7 @@ cifs_proc_clean(void) > remove_proc_entry("LinuxExtensionsEnabled", proc_fs_cifs); > remove_proc_entry("Experimental", proc_fs_cifs); > remove_proc_entry("LookupCacheEnabled", proc_fs_cifs); > + remove_proc_entry("features", proc_fs_cifs); > remove_proc_entry("fs/cifs", NULL); > } > > @@ -791,6 +795,38 @@ static const struct file_operations > cifs_security_flags_proc_fops = { > .release = single_release, > .write = cifs_security_flags_proc_write, > }; > + > +static int cifs_feat_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) > +{ > + seq_printf(m, "# CIFS features enabled\n"); > +#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_DFS_UPCALL > + seq_printf(m, "dfs"); > + seq_putc(m, ' '); > +#endif > +#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_UPCALL > + seq_printf(m, "spnego"); > + seq_putc(m, ' '); > +#endif > +#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_FSCACHE > + seq_printf(m, "fsc"); > + seq_putc(m, ' '); > +#endif > + seq_putc(m, '\n'); > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int cifs_feat_proc_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file) > +{ > + return single_open(file, cifs_feat_proc_show, NULL); > +} > + > +static const struct file_operations cifs_feat_proc_fops = { > + .owner = THIS_MODULE, > + .open = cifs_feat_proc_open, > + .read = seq_read, > + .llseek = seq_lseek, > + .release = single_release, > +}; > #else > inline void cifs_proc_init(void) > { > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in > the body of a message to [email protected] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Looks good. Now that I've given this more thought though... I wonder if this would be better done as a new line near the beginning of /proc/fs/cifs/DebugData. Maybe: Features: dfs spnego fsc People often provide that info already when reporting bugs. We wouldn't need to ask for anything new that way. Thoughts? -- Jeff Layton <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
