[lkml]   [2001]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: /proc format (was Device Registry (DevReg) Patch 0.2.0)
Jesse Pollard wrote:
> Personally, I think
> proc_printf(fragment, "%d %d",get_portnum(usbdev), usbdev->maxchild);
> (or the string "dddd ddd" with d representing a digit)
> is shorter (and faster) to parse with
> fscanf(input,"%d %d",&usbdev,&maxchild);
> Than it would be to try parsing
> <usb:topology port="ddddd" portnum="dddd">
> with an XML parser.
> Sorry - XML is good for some things. It is not designed to be a
> interface language between a kernel and user space.
> I am NOT in favor of "one file per value", but structured data needs
> to be written in a reasonable, concise manner. XML is intended for
> communication between disparate systems in an exreemly precise manner
> to allow some self documentation to be included when the communication
> fails.


But one thing XML provides (potentially) is a DTD that defines meanings and formats.
IMHO the kernel needs something like this for /proc (though not in DTD format!).

Has anyone ever tried to write a formal syntax for all the entries
in /proc? We have bits and pieces of /proc documentation in
/usr/src/linux/Documentation, but nothing you could feed directly
into a parser generator. It'd be neat to have a good definition for /proc
in the LSB, and have an LSB conformance test that could look in
/proc and say "Yup, all the entries there conform to the spec and can
be parsed properly."

( mentions /proc,
but doesn't standardize any of it, except to suggest that /etc/mtab
can be a symbolic link to /proc/mounts.)
- Dan
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 12:52    [W:0.086 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site