Re: What /proc should contain [was: /proc/driver/microcode]

From: Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm+eric@ccr.net)
Date: Thu Feb 24 2000 - 09:19:28 EST


Dag Brattli <dagb@cs.uit.no> writes:

> "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> writes:
>
> > Peter T. Breuer writes:
> > > "A month of sundays ago Ricky Beam wrote:"
> >
> > >> There shouldn't be one damned bit of english text in there anywhere.
> > >
> > > I disagree. procfs is the most important and useful reporting system
> > > the kernel has.
> >
> > I hope you actually wrote serious proc-using code. If not, you should
> > not argue. I wrote the new ps, and I think /proc is a crawling horror.
>
> I guess I might upset some people, but why not present most files in /proc
> in XML format. Then you just add tags to all the information describing the
> both structure and what the info really is. The good thing with this is
> that you can both add new or remove information without breaking old
> applications. You don't need to worry about different versions of the
> kernel having different output, and you could even use your web-browser
> (when they have XML-support, Opera already has) to view the /proc file
> system. Your ps program and many others could be replaced by a style-sheet 8)

Hideous. One file one value as it is mostly in /proc/sys is much nicer. Baring race conditions.

Eric

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 21:00:10 EST