Re: [PATCH] 2.5.17 /dev/ports

[Ruth Ivimey-Cook]

On Wednesday 22 May 2002 16:10, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > ... and while we are at flamewar-mongering, none of these files have
> > > any business being in procfs.
> >
> > That depends on how you define procfs. Linux is not Plan 9. A lot of it
> > certainly is going to cleaner with a devicefs and sysctlfs
>
> OK, let me put it that way:
>
> none of these files has any business bringing the rest of procfs along
> for a ride and none of them has any reason to use any code from fs/proc/*.c

Ok, I'll bite. Why? Note: I'm not necessarily saying I disagree, just that I 
don't know what "test" you are applying to determine whether stuf should be 
in or out?

Personally, my test is "does it provide useful information to a program or to 
a user that is not available in other ways, or where the other ways require 
an ioctl interface". 

I insert the second phrase because I do like the general principle that in 
Unix you read and write stuff to files, and procfs does provide a lot of 
extra scope for that to happen.

There is an obvious problem with formats, but that is a specification and 
discipline issue between the various developers, and not something that is 
wrong with procfs as such.

Ruth