[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Proc fs limit workaround?
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Nick Pollitt wrote:
>And second, why is the 4K limit there in the first place?

Primarily because it was never designed for 90% of the crap that's in there
now. I have long hated the BS required to get more than 4k worth of stuff
out of /proc. The way around the limit is not a solution, it's a hack.
There's not atomicy for processing more than one page unless you go out
of your way to deal with it. I've banged my head on the desk a few times
because of this -- what happens when there's any delay between read()'s?

#ifdef RANT
In case you haven't noticed a lot of present-day linux is a nice collection
of hacks. This is the nature of code evilution -- I have to deal with this
everyday (of course, I'm paid to.) procfs was actually a Very Good Thing(r)
six or seven years ago when it was _designed_. Now look at it.

I'm a perfectionist. I like things to be well planned, designed, and
emplimented to do what they were designed to do. If you want it to do
something else, return to the planning stage. For example, 747's weren't
designed to clear cut forests. While they can be used for such a task,
they are quite inefficient at it.


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 12:38    [W:0.265 / U:0.960 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site