[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Requesting for review of the Draft proposal for - procfs

From: olafBuddenhagen
Subject: Re: Requesting for review of the Draft proposal for - procfs
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:26:36 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)


On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:07:53PM +0100, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:

> I was the student in GSoC last year, just thought I'd share my
> acquired wisdom and drop some comments on your proposal.  :-)

Thanks for that :-)

> Also, procfs is mainly used to provide compatibility with linux.  So,
> if /proc/<pid>/mem isn't used in linux it won't be used in the Hurd.
> (I'm not sure it isn't used, but you made it sound like that in your
> proposal.)


> As I see it, procfs should not be a single translator.  Rather, there
> should be split into distinct parts, e.g. a couple of /very/ simple
> translators for `uptime', `version' etc. and one handling all the
> `<pid>' directories or possibly several ones merged together using
> unionfs.

Just what I think :-)

> Thus I think the best design of an IpPI would be to refine libnetfs
> into a libprocfs.  To make it very easy if not trivial to write such
> translators.

I don't quite see the need for a special library here -- what would it
provide over plain libtrivfs?...


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]