[lkml]   [1997]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: procfs problems
    On 15 Apr 1997, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
    > > Those of you interested in discussing design flaws with the current procfs
    > > filesystem, take a look at
    > >
    > > I invite comments.

    In regards to the "excuse", the data ifconfig uses has changed, so if it
    gets fixed "right" I don't see why we can't just do it.

    About the differences in /proc/{modules,locks,pci} I don't see how you
    could format then all the same. I mean modules has three columns first
    and third are variable sizes, locks has 13 columns each followed by a 3
    column row and pci, well, it doesn't begin to fit in any column/row scheme.
    I would think similar data should have the same format, but
    /proc/{modules,locks,pci} doesn't qualify in my book.

    > Well regarding your /proc/cpuinfo format, I think we could fix this
    > problem by just making sure that the very first line of the cpuinfo
    > holds the port name.
    > Something like:
    > /proc/cpuinfo:
    > port : {i386,alpha,sparc,ppc,mips}

    I would defiantly disagree in this part. Putting arch instead of port
    would be ok. I think technically speaking i386 isn't a port of linux,
    because it started there.

    > And then, if people want to parse any of the extra information, they
    > should know the architecture specific information on the CPU before
    > attempting to parse it.

    | David Fries |
    | |

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:39    [W:0.025 / U:6.260 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site