[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: PROPOSAL: /proc standards (was dot-proc interface [was: /proc
    >>1)  IT SHOULD NOT BE PRETTY.  No tabs to line up columns. No "progress
    >>bars." No labels except as "proc comments" (see later). No in-line
    >It should not be pretty TO HUMANS. Slight difference. It should be >pretty
    >to shellscripts and other applications though.

    If this is the case, why are we using ASCII for everything? If the only
    interface to /proc will be applications, then we could just as well let the
    application turn four bytes into an ASCII IPv4 adddress. We could easily
    have it set up to parse using the format [single byte type identifier (ie 4
    for string with the first byte of "data" being the string length, 1 for
    unsigned int, 2 for signed int, 19 for IPv4, 116 for progress bar,
    etc.)][data]. Let people standardize away. Am I missing the point?

    I think every aspect of an OS should be intuitive (so long as it is
    efficient), which IMO /proc isn't. If this means splitting it in two, as
    some have suggested, so be it. It certainly should have a design
    guideline/spec so we may at least be consistant. Just my 2 coppers.

    Will Knop

    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.044 / U:43.648 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site