Messages in this thread | | | From | (david parsons) | Subject | Re: /proc/cpuinfo verbiage differ unnecessarily between ports... | Date | 31 Aug 1999 23:23:37 -0700 |
| |
In article <linux.kernel.19990901025245.A2876@lamia.loth.demon.co.uk>, Steve Dodd <dirk@loth.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 05:17:23PM -0700, david parsons wrote: > >> Why not? I'd say that the contents of /proc/cpuinfo would be very >> interesting to tools, because it's what the operating system thinks >> it's running on. > >Would it not be more sensible to introduce a syscall or some such thing to >do it?
No. If this information is presented in a syscall, you end up restricting access to that set of programs that know about the syscall. If it's presented in text, just about anything, up to and including that shell that you managed to get started before that fork bomb ate the system, can display the contents of the tables.
____ david parsons \bi/ Syscalls? Eeeeuuuuuwwww! \/
- 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/
| |