Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-15,: Re: An alternative way of populating /proc

# Re: An alternative way of populating /proc

Jamie Lokier (lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk)
Fri, 14 Apr 2000 22:59:11 +0200

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: An alternative way of populating /proc"
- Previous message: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: posix_fadvise"

Matt Aubury wrote:
> So it seems that the vast majority of cases can be boiled down to just
> whether or not root is allowed to write.

Such wacky syntax as "%<d" (400), "%>d" (600) and "%644d" perhaps.

> As for data types, integer I/O (decimal and hex) seems to be very
> common. String output is also frequent. We could potentially also do
> range checked integers, string input, arrays... How useful would these
> be? We'll still have the ability to pass function pointers for output,
> and I'll be adding support for generic input too.

There is already a syntax defined for range checking via the MODULE_PARM
macro. Can it be shared?

-- Jamie

-
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: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: An alternative way of populating /proc"
- Previous message: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: posix_fadvise"