Re: [PATCH] 2.5 PROPOSAL: Replacement for current /proc of shit.

Erik Andersen (andersen@codepoet.org)
Thu, 1 Nov 2001 18:56:22 -0700

On Fri Nov 02, 2001 at 12:42:52PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 05:42:36 -0500
> Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com> wrote:
>
> > Is this designed to replace sysctl?
>
> Well, I'd suggest replacing *all* the non-process stuff in /proc. Yes.

As I've thought about this in the past, I realized that /proc
is serving two purposes. It is exporting the list of processes,
and it is also used to export kernel and driver information.

What we really need is for procfs to be just process stuff, and the
creation of a separate kernelfs nodev filesystem though which
the kernel can share all the gory details about the hardware,
drivers, phase of the moon, etc. Since these serve two
fundamentally different tasks, doesn't it make sense to split
them into two separate filesystems?

-Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen             http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/