Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:59:52 -0500 (CDT) | From | <> | Subject | Re: 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 > > http://www.anime.net/~goemon/procfs.html > > 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 | | dfries@mail.win.org | +---------------------------------+
| |