Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 22:44:55 -0300 (EST) From: Joao Carlos Mendes Luis <jonny@jonny.eng.br> To: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: mike@dingo.cdrom.com, dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, mike@smith.net.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernfs/procfs questions... Message-ID: <199806040144.WAA03920@roma.coe.ufrj.br> In-Reply-To: <199806021650.LAA02867@dyson.iquest.net> from "John S. Dyson" at "Jun 2, 98 11:50:32 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
#define quoting(John S. Dyson)
// Mike Smith said:
// >
// > Sure; but can't these sort of improvements be made to the methods for
// > manipulating procfs nodes? What other drawbacks are there to the FS
// > model?
// >
// It is bogus that writing to a file "controls" something inside
// the system,
Then, /dev/kmem is bogus ?
TM
The idea that file namespace controls everything is a GoodThing,
and the existence of device files is one of the things I like
more in Unix.
I agree with somebody (Mike ?) who said that this facilitates
using of general tools.
I have used kernfs long time ago, but stopped using when I
perceived that it was not being developed anymore, and no
more functionality would be added. It was dead.
With tool functions to facilitate kernel drivers to create their
interface to kernfs, they would be as easy as creating sysctls.
What I don't like in Linux kernels is the mess that they made into
their procfs, so if you guys intend to continue kernfs, be
careful to keep the house clean.
// that is kind-of what SNMP is for. Now, if someone
// wants a kernfs that is compatible with our sysctl, they should
// be able to use the sysctl info to build the kernfs.
That is not a bad idea ! :)
/kern/sysctl/...
Jonny
--
Joao Carlos Mendes Luis M.Sc. Student
jonny@jonny.eng.br Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806040144.WAA03920>