Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
From:      Alex <garbanzo@hooked.net>
To:        Simon Shapiro <Shimon@i-Connect.Net>
Cc:        current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Does this idea have merit?
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.96.970916221125.4358A-100000@zippy.dyn.ml.org>
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.970916220520.Shimon@i-Connect.Net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Simon Shapiro wrote:

> 
> Hi Alex;  On 17-Sep-97 you wrote: 
> >  
> >  
> >  On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >  
> > > In message <199709131739.MAA00426@watcher.isl.net>, Daniel Ortmann
> > > writes:
> > > 
> > > >On the other hand, maybe I'm missing something basic.  Is there
> > > >some other way to find out (without forking a /bin/ps):
> > > 
> > > cat /proc/*/status | grep ... ?
> > > 
> > > Extending the tree in procfs is not for the faint ...
> >  
> >  It probably is, but one of the things I liked about Linux was the
> >  ability
> >  to get loads of information about certian drivers by checking the proc
> >  fs.
> >  How hard would it be to impliment something like that under procfs or
> >  say
> >  under something else?
> 
> The problem with Linux's /proc is that it is very much a hack.  The
> interface is simply too complex and bloats the kernel too.

I did kinda get that feeling by looking at it.  I still think something
like this would be useful in a filesystem, whether devfs, or someotherfs.
 
> I implemented, for the DPT driver, a much simpler mechanism, write a
> command into /dev/dptX (such as ``echo -n "foo" > /dev/dpt0'') and then
> read form /dev/dptX (such as ``cat < /dev/dpt0'').  Gives you the same
> result, 1/10 or less of the code.
> I ended up tearing most of it out;  Still took too much code in the kernel.
>  In the newest DPT driver, you can acomplish the same with an IOCTL and a
> trivial utility.  Some of our staff really liked the read/write interface. 
> Some could not stand it.  Same could be said about /proc;  It may be good
> for certain things, but less for others.  I find the fs semantics in the
> kernel too complex, butt this is just me being an old fart :-)

That's where I think filesystems in an LKM come in handy.

- alex




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970916221125.4358A-100000>