Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:12:28 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: 2.1.120 - too many errors on the network interfaces |
| |
On Sun, Sep 20, 1998 at 05:06:10PM +0200, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: > In message <m3k92yhm7i.fsf@fred.muc.de>, Andi Kleen writes: > +----- > | allbery@kf8nh.apk.net (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH) writes: > | > them fall short), but it does seem silly that proc doesn't include version > | > numbers. Would it really be that painful to have the first line of a /proc > | > file be an interface version number? Old utilities that don't know about i > | > | This is totally unnecessary if you write robust /proc parsers. > +--->8 > > And this helps Alex with his /proc/cpuinfo conundrum exactly how? Robust > parsing can only take you so far; it assumes that the contents of /proc are > consistent between platforms and Linux revisions. When (not if) they > aren't, you have a problem that only a version number can help you deal with > sensibly (I should not have to parse 70% of a /proc file to find that it's > not actually compatible with what I'm expecting...).
Versions numbers are evil to text filters and should be avoided IMHO.
-Andi (who likes his pipes without special cases)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |