Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Nov 2001 12:42:52 +1100 | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.5 PROPOSAL: Replacement for current /proc of shit. |
| |
On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 05:42:36 -0500 Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com> wrote:
> Is this designed to replace sysctl?
Well, I'd suggest replacing *all* the non-process stuff in /proc. Yes.
> In general we want to support using sysctl and similar features WITHOUT > procfs support at all (of any type). Nice for embedded systems > especially.
1) My example was implemented as a filesystem. You could just as easily have a CONFIG_PROC_SYSCALL which implemented access as a syscall, ie. sysctl2().
2) It's not worth the hassle to save 7k of code (well, the final implementation will be larger than this, but OTOH, your replacement will be non-zero size).
> AFAICS your proposal, while nice and clean :), doesn't offer all the > features that sysctl presently does.
You're right! My code:
1) Doesn't have the feature of requiring #ifdef CONFIG_SYSCTL in every file that uses it properly (ie. checks error returns). 2) Doesn't have the feature that compiling without CONFIG_PROC/CONFIG_SYSCTL wastes kernel memory unless surrounded by above #ifdefs. 3) Doesn't have the feature that it takes over 90 lines to implement a working read & write. 4) Doesn't have the feature that it's hard to create dynamic directories. 5) Doesn't have the feature that it's inherently racy against module unload.
What was I thinking???? Rusty. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |