Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:35:55 +1100 | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.5 PROPOSAL: Replacement for current /proc of shit. |
| |
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 10:46:44 -0500 Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 09:48:52AM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > What concerns me most is the pain involved in writing a /proc or > > sysctl interface in the kernel today. Take kernel/module.c's > > get_ksyms_list as a typical example: 45 lines of code to perform a > > very trivial task. And this code is sitting in your kernel whether > > proc is enabled or not. Now, I'm a huge Al Viro fan, but his proposed > > improvements are in the wrong direction, IMHO. > > I'm all for simplifying the internal kernel interfaces. What I'm not > at *all* convinced about is that it's worth it to make serious changes > to the layout of /proc, /proc/sys, etc. And the concept of being able > to very rapidly and easily get at system configuration variables > without needing to make sure that /proc is mounted is a very, very > good thing.
As these threads show, this is a big argument, involving: 1) What should the in-kernel interface look like? 2) What should the userspace interface look like? 3) Should there be a sysctl interface overlap?
I'm trying to nail down (1). Whether there is a new backwards compatible sysctl() which takes a name instead of a number, and/or whether the whole thing should be done in userspace, I am not going to address.
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/
| |