From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 1 17:47:05 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA24145 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 17:47:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (dingo.cdrom.com [204.216.28.145]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA24104 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 17:46:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA02024 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:41:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806012341.QAA02024@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: kernfs/procfs questions... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 16:41:59 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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? -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message