Messages in this thread |  | | From | (Miquel van Smoorenburg) | Subject | Re: PROPOSAL: /proc standards (was dot-proc interface [was: /proc | Date | Wed, 7 Nov 2001 23:01:02 +0000 (UTC) |
| |
In article <F57jukJ1zkc6g9wHRQa0000b09f@hotmail.com>, William Knop <w_knop@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>Yes, but I meant a program which reads a single binary value and >outputs >>it as ascii, as a generic layer between the binary /proc and >the ascii >>world of shell scripts. >> >>I don't like a binary /proc. > >The binary issue could very easily be solved, as you said, by a small >generic program to do the conversion. Upside it only shell scripts need >this, while more advanced (lower level) programs will get better preformance >out of binary format. Downside? I am not sure I see the problem. If a >program needs to get a lot of /proc info frequently, a binary interface will >be faster. Idealistically, do we want the kernel interfaces binary or ascii? >Do we want them to preform best with (be native to) shell scripts or >programs?
Both. /proc in ascii for shell scripts etc, and sysctl() in binary for C programs and the like.
Something like
sysctl(SYSCTL_GET, "fs.file-max", SYSCTL_TYPE_INT, &val, sizeof(val))
It gets you free type checking as well.
Perhaps you even want a opendir()/getdents() type sysctl function so you can walk the tree without /proc being mounted at all.
Mike. -- "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" -- Albert Einstein.
- 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/
|  |