Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:09:01 +0100 | From | Jakob Østergaard <> | Subject | Re: PROPOSAL: dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff] |
| |
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 02:43:41PM +0100, Pascal Schmidt wrote: > On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Jakob Østergaard wrote: > > > Now, my program needs to deal with the data, perform operations on it, > > so naturally I need to know what kind of data I'm dealing with. Most likely, > > my software will *expect* some certain type, but if I have no way of verifying > > that my assumption is correct, I will lose sooner or later... > > Why not read everything into a 1024-bit signed variable? Will work for > every numeric value in /proc. It's a bit of a hassle to code, but it is > possible. You only need to know the type if you want to write a numerical > value to a file in /proc, and even then the driver behind that /proc entry > should do sanity checks.
So for 99.9% of all cases my program will do much much more work than is actually needed.
I may still save the data in a database, or go over the network with it, so I should implement 1024 bit signed integers in all of that code too ?
And what happens when we do crypto and 1024 bits is not enough ?
I think the "use rediculously large datatypes" solution is a poor one, as it can never cover all cases in the future, and it will impose a large overhead on existing and new applications.
-- ................................................................ : jakob@unthought.net : And I see the elder races, : :.........................: putrid forms of man : : Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, : : OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. : :.........................:............{Konkhra}...............: - 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/
| |