Re: PROPOSAL: /proc standards (was dot-proc interface [was: /proc

[Albert D. Cahalan]

Alex Bligh - linux writes:
> [Albert Cahalan]

>> Design the kernel to make doing this difficult.
>> Define some offsets as follows:
>> 
>> # define FOO_PID 0
>> # define FOO_PPID 1
>> 
>> Now, how is anyone going to create "an extra inserted DWORD"
>> between those? They'd need to renumber FOO_PPID and any other
>> values that come after it.
>
> For instance, take the /proc/mounts type example, where
> each row is a sequence of binary values. Someone decides
> to add another column, which assuming it is a DWORD^W__u64,
> does exactly this, inserts a DWORD^W__u64 between the
> end of one record and the start of the next as far a
> poorly written parser is concerned.

That would be a botched design to begin with.

Each row becomes a separate binary file. They are distinct
records anyway. Splitting by column would be a poor choice.

> The brokenness is not due to the distinction between ASCII
> and binary. The brokenness is due the ill-defined nature
> of the format, and poor change control.

ASCII encourages ill-defined formats and poor change control.
People make assumptions about what is valid.