[lkml]   [2000]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectWhat /proc should contain [was: /proc/driver/microcode]
On Wed Feb 23, 2000 at 01:59:02PM +1100, Richard Gooch wrote:
> I don't agree. /proc should be for processes and *nothing* else.

This is certainly how it is in BSD. /proc has only process
information. All the little knobs that Linux places in /proc
(for example "echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward") the
BSDs set via sysctl (which seems like the Right Thing(tm)).

I encourabe everyone on the list to log into a FreeBSD box,
and do a "ls /proc", then type "sysctl -a".

Everyone seems anxious about their favorite little text files the currently
live in /proc. With a proper set of sysctl entries, those little text files
could be easily recreated via user space apps. Heck, the whole current text
file could be accessed via sysctl (no reason to keep them as simple one liners
-- BSD has some multi line text files in there). This would leave /proc
containing nothing but pid #'s, and a symlink to the current pid's /proc entry.

The example of /proc/rtc was mentioned several times.
Any reason that this file could not be replaced with
sysctl entries? Or one fat "rtc" entry" that has the
whole current file?


Erik B. Andersen Web:
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:56    [W:0.114 / U:0.236 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site