(cc'd viro and mochel, as I feel they are 'owners' in the subject area)
Let's jump back a bit, for a second. Why is procfs bad news? There are
minor issues with the implementation of single-page output and lack of
pure file operations, but the big issue is lack of a sane namespace.
sysfs is no better than procfs if we keep heaving junk into it without
thinking about proper namespace organization.
I personally prefer a separate filesystem for what you describe. That
gives the EVMS team control over their own portion of the namespace,
while giving complete flexibility. I do _not_ see sysfs as simply a
procfs replacement -- sysfs IMO is more intended as a way to organize
certain events and export internal kernel structure.
To tangent a bit, WRT a private evmsfs, make sure that (a) you prefer
ASCII over binary interfaces where reasonable, and (b) any binary
interfaces you have are fixed-endian and 64-bit safe from the get-go.
Consider crazy cases like someone exporting evmsfs over NFS, from a
32-bit IA32 server to a big-endian 64-bit client.
Jeff
-
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/