Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-15,: Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs

# Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs

Marcus Meissner (Marcus.Meissner@caldera.de)
Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:33:28 +0200

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: George Bonser: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"
- Previous message: George Bonser: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"
- In reply to: Ed Carp: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"

In article <200004110747.CAA07448@khijol.org> you wrote:
> Uh, I would've thought that would've been intuitively obvious ;)
> device=eth0;ip_address=192.168.201.116,netmask=255.255.255.0
> device=eth1;ip_address=192.168.201.117,netmask=255.255.255.0

> As for "there's already lots of code to parse this", where? For what language? If I can't parse your pseudo-SNMP format with a shell script, it's useless -- and it completely defeats the purpose of /proc.

> If you want to impose SNMP on the kernel, do it in your own user space FS. But don't make the rest of us suffer through it, huh?

The longer I follow that syntax thread the more I like the VFS approach with

/proc/.../net/devices/eth0
transmit/
bytes
packets
errors
...
receive/
...

Advantages:
- Easy to parse and use for scripts.
- Easy to read for humans.
- Unproblematic
- Easily extendable, will not break scripts when extending.

Disadvantage:
- When reading bytes/packets you might get slightly different
views for new packets may have arrived.

I think we can take a bit heisenberg unsharpness in regards to useability.

Ciao, Marcus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: George Bonser: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"
- Previous message: George Bonser: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"
- In reply to: Ed Carp: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"