lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans
    Date
    On Wednesday 07 January 2009 10:13:44 Andrew Morton wrote:
    > (cc added)
    >
    > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:57:44 -0500
    >
    > Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
    > > On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 12:43:00AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > > softirq-introduce-statistics-for-softirq.patch
    > > > proc-export-statistics-for-softirq-to-proc.patch
    > > > proc-update-document-for-proc-softirqs-and-proc-stat.patch
    > >
    > > Why is this in procfs?
    >
    > softirq stuff in /proc seems appropriate? It's alongside
    > /proc/interrupts. We could put it in /trendy-fs-of-the-day, but what
    > would it gain us?

    Haven't we kind of agreed to use sysfs for things like this? A few years
    too late to be raising objections now ;)

    One problem I have with sysfs is that it (the directory structure, rather
    than the sysfs code itself) really needs to be policed and maintained
    by a central and coherent place/person with taste. Otherwise people put
    their own random crap with their own random naming schemes and becomes
    a crazy mess.

    softirqs are not hardware but purely kernel subsystem construct, as such
    they probably go under /sys/kernel/. People unfortunately have already
    added random crap to the /sys/kernel/ root directory, but future additions
    really should go into a good subdirectory structure (putting it into the
    root directory is equivalent to ditching all subdirectories from /proc/sys/).

    /sys/kernel/softirq/*, I suggest.




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-07 03:09    [W:0.022 / U:31.696 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site