Messages in this thread | | | From | Rob Landley <> | Subject | Whither the "system without /proc" crowd? | Date | Fri, 8 Nov 2002 18:26:16 +0000 |
| |
On Friday 08 November 2002 13:58, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Here's a patch that includes that feature, puts the tunables in sysfs > (so you obviously need that mounted). In > > /sys/block/<disk>/iosched
Stupid question time:
A great deal of text has been expended over the years by people desperately trying to make sure you didn't need /proc mounted to have a usable system, for some definition of usable. Now with rootfs, initramfs, sysfs, and the libfs inspired "make a filesystem rather than an ioctl" policy, the main argument against requiring the use of /proc is that it has a lot more gunk in it (left over from the days when it was the only ramfs type system to export values in) than anyone is comfortable with. (The argument against /dev/pty largely seems to be inertia, now that the "number of ptys" issue as a config tunable seems to have been cleared up).
There seems to be some sort of nebulous plan for eventually stripping down /proc, perhaps making a "crapfs" that's a union mount on top of /proc providing deprecated legacy support for a release or two. But I haven't heard it explicitly stated.
So my questions are:
1) will some subset of /proc, /sys, /dev/pty, etc become required at some point in the future on everything but the most customized embedded systems? Or is keeping the system usable without them still a goal?
2) Is there a plan to rehabilitate /proc?
(I ask because I don't know. Maybe I missed some important posts...)
Rob
-- http://penguicon.sf.net - Terry Pratchett, Eric Raymond, Pete Abrams, Illiad, CmdrTaco, liquid nitrogen ice cream, and caffienated jello. Well why not? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |