Mark Hahn wrote:
> the main goal at this point is to make kernel proc-related
> code more efficient, easy-to-use, etc. a purely secondary goal
> is to make user-space tools more robust, efficient, and simpler.
>
> there are three things that need to be communicated through the proc
> interface, for each chunk of data: its type, it's name and its value.
> it's critical that data be tagged in some way, since that's the only
> way to permit back-compatibility. that is, a tool looking for a particular
> tag will naturally ignore new data with other tags.
Agreed.
> [three example schemes in use in /proc today]
> I have a sense that all of these could be collapsed into a single
> api where kernel systems would register hierarchies of tuples of
> <type,tag,callback>, where callback would be passed the tag,
> and proc code would take care of "rendering" the data into
> human readable text (default), binary, or even xml.
Sounds reasonable to me. Relieve the modules of having to
format their /proc entries by defining standard code that does
it. And as an extra bonus, if tuples registration was table-driven,
the tables would define a grammar that could be fed to a parser
generator.
(It sounds a little bit like the snmpd code I'm working on,
actually. How eerie.)
(It also sounds a little like (gasp) the windows registry,
but hey, that's ok.)
- Dan
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 30 2001 - 21:00:14 EST