Re: proposal for generic interface to /proc text files

A Bruce in the land of the Bruces (
Mon, 30 Sep 1996 23:50:57 +1000 (EST)

On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Keith Owens wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Rob Riggs wrote:
> > On 29-Sep-96 Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> > >This is a proposal for a generic interface for text files in /proc.
> > [various formatting suggestions omitted]
> > it more confusing to read by humans. Any program that uses specific
> > /proc files should already know how to parse them.
> One problem that has reared its ugly head is reading newer format proc
> entries with older programs. The current plain text /proc files are not

This has been happening with a number of other things around linux.
(differing system call behaviour, breaking programs in little annoying
ways) As well as stabilising the /proc interface, can we stop changing ...
well, guess thats the wrong thing to say... how about... stop breaking
programs ;)

[snip /proc handling method.. btw, since java is in the kernel - html for
/proc? ;) ]

> "buffer too small". The proc driver then passes larger and larger buffers
> until the procinfo routine has enough space to display all the data in one

Just something thats occurred to me, and is summed up in two words...
'code bloat'. Not the above section in itself, but how new code is
going... modules are a big help though. Now whatever happened to the
days when hackers weren't satisfied unless they got their code down to the
barest (and fastest) minimum? ;)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Minerva Computing - Linux & the 'net

The human mind ordinarily operates at only ten percent of its capacity -
the rest is overhead for the operating system.