At 2:59 PM +0200 2001-06-01, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Not to open a what may be can of worms but ...
>>
>> What's wrong with procfs?
>
>Imho, a procfs should be for process-information, nothing else.
>The procfs in its current form, while useful, is something horrible
>that should be taken out on the backyard and shot using slugs.
>
>Ehrmmm. No, but seriously, the non-process stuff should be separate
>from the procfs. Maybe call it kernfs or whatever.
>
>> It allows a general interface to the kernel that does not require new
>> syscalls/ioctls and can be accessed from user space without specifically
>> compiled programs. You can use shell scripts, java, command line etc.
>
>Yes, and it's also totally non standardised.
It clearly fills a need, though, and has the distinct side benefit of
cutting down on the proliferation of ioctls. Sure, it's non-standard
and a mess. But it's semi-documented, easy to use, and v. general.
What's the preferred alternative, to state the first question another
way? For any single small project/driver, creating a new fs simply
isn't going to happen.
--
/Jonathan Lundell.
-
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/
