From owner-cvs-all Sat Mar 25 22:30:19 2000 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from holly.calldei.com (adsl-208-191-146-189.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net [208.191.146.189]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3EEA37B90E; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 22:30:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from chris@holly.calldei.com) Received: (from chris@localhost) by holly.calldei.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24763; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 00:30:15 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from chris) Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 00:30:14 -0600 From: Chris Costello To: Brian Fundakowski Feldman Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/miscfs/linprocfs linprocfs_misc.c Message-ID: <20000326003014.D18325@holly.calldei.com> Reply-To: chris@calldei.com References: <200003251941.LAA67435@freefall.freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/0.96.4i In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sunday, March 26, 2000, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > What's the point, exactly? This linprocfs is kinda lame, in the > traditional sense of the word. Shouldn't it have the features > which the regular procfs has, too? Linux procfs doesn't only have > an "exe" file in the pid-directories. This linprocfs seems to only > have some of the "differences" between the two, and doesn't form the > necessary "full" procfs. I'm sure some VFS work could be done to > make the pid dirs unions, but why can't the missing functions/files > from the original procfs be duplicated in linprocfs, as a simple > solution? Right now, I just don't see the good in linprocfs. I really think this should be a part of the Linux emulator if anything. This just seems like we're only encouraging the use of bad interfaces. -- |Chris Costello |Can I yell "movie" in a crowded firehouse?? `-------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message