[lkml]   [1997]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: /proc file system, seems to -not- have standardisation ?
   From: (Alan Cox)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:33:42 +0000 (GMT)

I think it is. Certainly if someone came up with a rational format for
all of /proc, that _didnt_ clash with the existing /proc files I would
be willing to go for it and to optionally support 'oldproc' files in
2.2, and lose them over a couple of years as the tools knew the newer

Whoever does it had better get it right however - we don't want to do
that more than once

Indeed; we can only do this once; I'm also not convinced, by the way,
that the current scheme of /proc/<major subsystem> isn't the best way to
go. If I'm trying to look at network related things, it's actually much
easier if everything is under /proc/net, than if things are scattered
all over hell-and-gone.

Likewise, I'm in the middle of creating /proc/tty, which will contain
tty-related information, both hardware drivers and tty line discplines.

And, it's pretty obvious that if I'm interesting in something related to
the SCSI system, I should look in /proc/scsi.

I'm not convinced that taking parts of /proc/net, /proc/scsi, and
/proc/tty, and mashing them all under /proc/dev is necessary progress.
It may look good from an Computer Science professor's point of view, but
is it really the most convenient way for us to organize the information,
and does it make things easier for a user who is trying to navigate
through the proc filesystem?

- Ted

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.038 / U:0.492 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site