On Mar 22 2007 21:48, Greg KH wrote: >On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 02:24:46AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> On Mar 22 2007 08:28, Greg KH wrote: >> >> Question regarding sysfs files: How would you do something like >> /proc/net/nf_conntrack with sysfs? Have directories named like 0000, >> 0001, 0002, ..? > >I don't know, I've never said that _all_ proc files can move to sysfs. >For some things, like possibly the netfilter stuff, proc files make >more sense.
But proc is for procs. (At least its name indicates.) >Were you thinking of moving this file to sysfs? No, not that one. But new modules. Everyone says "please no new /proc files"[some examples, 1,2]. On the other hand, [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/21/34 [2] http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/2/3/285 >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/maxim# cat >>>> /sys/devices/system/clockevents/clockevents0/registered >>>> >>>> lapic F:0007 M:3(periodic) C: 1 >>>> hpet F:0003 M:1(shutdown) C: 0 >>>> lapic F:0007 M:3(periodic) C: 0 >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/maxim# >>> >>> Now... this file needs to die, before 2.6.21 is released. It tries to >>> bring /proc-like parsing nightmare to sysfs. Kill it before it becomes >>> part of stable ABI! when there's a proc-style multi-line file like that clockevents thing in sysfs, people raise objections too (see above), which leads me to the question: if neither procfs nor sysfs are appropriate for such files, what is? >What does the information in it represent? A list of the currently tracked connections. Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
