Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 21:03:25 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@FreeBSD.ORG> To: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernfs/procfs questions... Message-ID: <199806020203.VAA01466@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <199806012341.QAA02024@dingo.cdrom.com> from Mike Smith at "Jun 1, 98 04:41:59 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Smith said: > > With the recent discussions regarding emulation of Linux' procfs, as > well as other comments on the general topic, I'm wondering what the > feeling is with regard to other, not-specifically-process-related data > in procfs. > > The Linux model is to have a separate directory for the kernel > (/proc/kern or similar). This keeps the root-level clutter down, but > does "pollute" the namespace. > > Thet NetBSD folks have something similar (although the implementation > still seems a bit raw) with their 'kernfs', which they mount on /kern, > keeping the separation between the two clear. > > Does anyone have any strong opinions? Justifications? > I much prefer sysctl, being a convert from the kernfs camp. Procfs is just bogus, not well thought out re-invention (IMO.) It seems that the pseudo-MIB scheme of sysctl is nice. -- John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, dyson@freebsd.org | it just makes you look stupid, jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806020203.VAA01466>