Re: [PATCH] 2.5 PROPOSAL: Replacement for current /proc of shit.
Thu, 1 Nov 2001 18:06:03 +0100
On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 05:42:36AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > proc(KBUILD_OBJECT, "foo", my_foo, int, 0644);
> > And with my previous parameter patch:
> > PARAM(foo, int, 0444);
> Is this designed to replace sysctl?
> In general we want to support using sysctl and similar features WITHOUT
> procfs support at all (of any type). Nice for embedded systems
Agreed. It would be nice to have always 1:1 relation between sysctl and
procfs interface, so you can do EVERYTHING with both of sysctl and via
/proc ... Maybe the code should be partly common as much as possible as well.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/