[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: PROPOSAL: dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff]

--On Sunday, 04 November, 2001 4:12 PM -0500 "Albert D. Cahalan"
<> wrote:

>> Now you are proposing to dink with the format. See above comments.

Attribution error: that was me, disagreeing with Jakob - the point was
if you want to dink with the format to achieve the objectives
he seemed to be after (which I thought were to do at least
in part with consistency etc.), it is theoretically possible
to do such dinking with minimal change & certainly retain
text format (and note I said retain original /proc files too). Whether
it's worth it as a practical exercize, with all the inherent
disruption it would no doubt cause, and questionable net benefit
is a completely different question. I was just saying that
binary format wasn't necessary to achieve what I think
Jakob wanted to achieve. The full thought
experiment was in a later email. I suspect you don't disagree
given your previous post.

>>> 3. Try and rearrange all the /proc entries this way, which
>>> means sysctl can be implemented by a straight ASCII
>>> write - nice and easy to parse files.
> This is exactly what the sysctl command does.

Sorry, I meant 'this way a consistent interface cf
sysctl could be used for more of what's currently
done through /proc'. Last time I looked there was
stuff you could read/write to through /proc which
couldn't be done through sysctl.

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.145 / U:3.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site