[lkml]   [1997]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: procfs and the like [Re: tmpfs and the VM]

    On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Janos Farkas wrote:

    > On 1997-08-21 at 06:58:20, David S. Miller wrote:
    > > Oh no.
    > >
    > > There is already way too much crap under /proc as it is.
    Its not the problem, that there is so much crap 'mounted' under /proc,
    but that (nearly) all the code is in the fs/proc tree and the procfs-code
    has become _very_ unreadable now.

    > Ah, but the problem is that a file or a directory in /proc is way
    > too easy to be created. :)
    Yes ;-)

    > Some people even dislike any new pseudo-fs detached from /proc,
    > just because /proc is already there, why not use that...
    Those pseudo-fs will be very procfs-like, so why not use /proc...

    > > Make a new filesystem for each of the neat new toys we want to provide
    > > a vfs interface to.
    Well a real fs would be overkill, I think.

    > Hmm.. but, to make things easier, probably the most inner core
    > of procfs should be abstracted to be used by other "info" type
    > filesystems; should that be possible and not be frowned upon? :)
    Yes, this is probably the right way to go.
    Just provide a simple-VFS filesystem, that provides a subset (like that
    from proc) of the VFS features. It could handle single-file-mounts
    (aka /proc/ksyms), or directory mounts (aka the /proc/<pid> stuff).
    Itself would only manage the hierarchy of the tree below /proc.

    This could clean up the code somewhat. I thougt about implementing this,
    but I have no time at the moment :(


     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:40    [W:0.019 / U:35.616 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site