From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:45:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:45:36 -0400 Received: from geos.coastside.net ([207.213.212.4]:52974 "EHLO geos.coastside.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:45:29 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20010601145900.C12402@khan.acc.umu.se> In-Reply-To: <3B178E0E.A4530D47@egenera.com> <20010601145900.C12402@khan.acc.umu.se> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:45:17 -0700 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Jonathan Lundell Subject: Re: Configure.help is complete Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.