Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: What /proc should contain [was: /proc/driver/microcode] | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | 24 Feb 2000 08:19:28 -0600 |
| |
Dag Brattli <dagb@cs.uit.no> writes:
> "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> writes: > > > Peter T. Breuer writes: > > > "A month of sundays ago Ricky Beam wrote:" > > > > >> There shouldn't be one damned bit of english text in there anywhere. > > > > > > I disagree. procfs is the most important and useful reporting system > > > the kernel has. > > > > I hope you actually wrote serious proc-using code. If not, you should > > not argue. I wrote the new ps, and I think /proc is a crawling horror. > > I guess I might upset some people, but why not present most files in /proc > in XML format. Then you just add tags to all the information describing the > both structure and what the info really is. The good thing with this is > that you can both add new or remove information without breaking old > applications. You don't need to worry about different versions of the > kernel having different output, and you could even use your web-browser > (when they have XML-support, Opera already has) to view the /proc file > system. Your ps program and many others could be replaced by a style-sheet 8)
Hideous. One file one value as it is mostly in /proc/sys is much nicer. Baring race conditions.
Eric
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |