Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:55:50 -0800 | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Subject | Re: Where to put adapters, /proc is cool |
| |
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:39:45 -0500 Karl Dahlke wrote:
> > So without knowing what an adapter is in this context /proc > > seems to be a bad choice. > > The best explanation might be an example. > I use my Jupiter speecha dapter all day, every day. > It basically sends text to a speech synthesizer. > It also has some virtual files. > /proc/adapters/jupiter/synth can be used by a process > to send text directly to the synthesizer. > > echo hello world >/proc/adapters/jupiter/synth > > And I hear hello world.
Like Jan said (ooooh, please use reply-to-all), the word "adapters" is just too generic. We have lots of other kinds of "adapters".
> I don't use this virtual file often, but sometimes it's nice. > A background process on another vt can wake me up when it's done. > And this is just one example. > Other virtual files load firmware and dictionaries into the dectalk synth, and so on. > Other people use virtual files in their adapters as well. > Really, /proc is the only place for these virtual files that interact > directly with the kernel and/or its modules; > I just wanted a fixed place under /proc for adapters to live, > like sys ttys scsi net, and so on. > > >/proc is for processes (and was in the past used for all sort of crap). > > I gather from this that you don't like the way people > are using /proc for user/kernel communication. > I suppose it's a matter of taste, > but I think it is one of the very coolest things about linux, period. > I don't have to create 27 new ioctl calls, and have them approved by everyone, > and make sure they don't collide with 363 other ioctl calls, every time I want > some new communication with the kernel or its drivers. > I can read and write files under /proc. > I'm sorry, but I think it's cool. > > Cool or not, it seems to be here to stay, > and I humbly suggest a standard location for adapters and their virtual files. > /proc/adapters
So some driver(s) already uses /proc/adapters? That's too bad.
It really doesn't belong in /proc, but even if it did, would /proc/speech make any sense? or /proc/synthesizer?
--- ~Randy
| |