lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.5.17 /dev/ports
    Date
    On Wednesday 22 May 2002 16:10, Alexander Viro wrote:
    > On Wed, 22 May 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
    > > > ... and while we are at flamewar-mongering, none of these files have
    > > > any business being in procfs.
    > >
    > > That depends on how you define procfs. Linux is not Plan 9. A lot of it
    > > certainly is going to cleaner with a devicefs and sysctlfs
    >
    > OK, let me put it that way:
    >
    > none of these files has any business bringing the rest of procfs along
    > for a ride and none of them has any reason to use any code from fs/proc/*.c

    Ok, I'll bite. Why? Note: I'm not necessarily saying I disagree, just that I
    don't know what "test" you are applying to determine whether stuf should be
    in or out?

    Personally, my test is "does it provide useful information to a program or to
    a user that is not available in other ways, or where the other ways require
    an ioctl interface".

    I insert the second phrase because I do like the general principle that in
    Unix you read and write stuff to files, and procfs does provide a lot of
    extra scope for that to happen.

    There is an obvious problem with formats, but that is a specification and
    discipline issue between the various developers, and not something that is
    wrong with procfs as such.

    Ruth
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:4.085 / U:0.044 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site