Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:47:11 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: Is sysfs the right place to get cache and CPU topology info? |
| |
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 21:46:47 +1000 Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote:
> > If they're talking about using the existing ones then sure, those are > > cast in stone as far as I'm concerned. > > > > But they do need to be a _bit_ defensive. If they see a file which has > > multiple name:value fields (shouldn't happen) then don't fail if new > > tuples turn up later on. Don't expect them to always be in the same > > order. Don't fail if new files later turn up in a sysfs directory. If > > a file has (a stupid) format like /proc/self/stat then be prepared for > > new columns to appear later on, etc. > > > > But if basic and obvious steps like that are taken in the library, and > > later kernel changes cause that library to break, we get to fix the > > kernel to unbreak their library. > > I assume they can rely on finding the stuff they need under > /sys/devices/system/cpu. Or do they need to traverse the whole of > /sys, and if so, how would they know which directories they should be > looking in?
/sys/devices/system/cpu sounds good to me. Everyone's mounting it at /sys.
| |