Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:16:47 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans |
| |
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:06:44 +1100 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> 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/).
All sounds like pointless wank^Wbikeshed painting to me.
> /sys/kernel/softirq/*, I suggest.
What would that *improve*?
| |