Messages in this thread | | | From | Ruth Ivimey-Cook <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.5.17 /dev/ports | Date | Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:20:39 +0100 |
| |
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/
| |