[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:2.490 / U:0.084 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site