Re: procfs problems (
Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:59:52 -0500 (CDT)

On 15 Apr 1997, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> > Those of you interested in discussing design flaws with the current procfs
> > filesystem, take a look at
> >
> > I invite comments.

In regards to the "excuse", the data ifconfig uses has changed, so if it
gets fixed "right" I don't see why we can't just do it.

About the differences in /proc/{modules,locks,pci} I don't see how you
could format then all the same. I mean modules has three columns first
and third are variable sizes, locks has 13 columns each followed by a 3
column row and pci, well, it doesn't begin to fit in any column/row scheme.
I would think similar data should have the same format, but
/proc/{modules,locks,pci} doesn't qualify in my book.

> Well regarding your /proc/cpuinfo format, I think we could fix this
> problem by just making sure that the very first line of the cpuinfo
> holds the port name.
> Something like:
> /proc/cpuinfo:
> port : {i386,alpha,sparc,ppc,mips}

I would defiantly disagree in this part. Putting arch instead of port
would be ok. I think technically speaking i386 isn't a port of linux,
because it started there.

> And then, if people want to parse any of the extra information, they
> should know the architecture specific information on the CPU before
> attempting to parse it.

| David Fries |
| |