From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jun 2 16:26:40 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA03208 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 16:26:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from bone.nectar.com (bone.nectar.com [204.27.67.93]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA03134; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 16:26:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nectar@bone.nectar.com) Received: from bone.nectar.com (localhost.communique.net [127.0.0.1]) by bone.nectar.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id SAA07302; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 18:24:54 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199806022324.SAA07302@bone.nectar.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 X-PGP-RSAfprint: 00 F9 E6 A2 C5 4D 0A 76 26 8B 8B 57 73 D0 DE EE X-PGP-RSAkey: http://pgp.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x094724A9 From: Jacques Vidrine In-reply-to: <199806020111.SAA02433@dingo.cdrom.com> References: <199806020111.SAA02433@dingo.cdrom.com> Subject: Re: kernfs/procfs questions... To: Mike Smith cc: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 18:24:53 -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- How about both? Run the filesystems (/procfs, /kernfs, Linux-like /procfs) in userland and let them do their jobs using sysctl and other system calls. At least for emulating a Linux-like /procfs, this seems like a reasonable way to go. Of course, having multiple interfaces to the same functionality does leave me with something of a bad taste ... Jacques Vidrine John Dyson wrote: > > 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. On 1 June 1998 at 18:11, Mike Smith wrote: > Personally, I like the basic idea (unified hierarchical namespace, > method-based access, etc), but sysctl (and kernfs') implementation is > unpleasantly inflexible. > > I also agree with Garrett that the filesystem metaphor isn't half bad > when it comes to at least basic access control for parameters, and this > is where either the Linux or NetBSD approaches lead the way. > > I'm also swayed in that we *do* need to follow the Linux lead at least > to the point where we can run their binaries with a reasonable degree > of success, so there's a little pressure on the border. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNXSJxTeRhT8JRySpAQHElQQAyqP5fc30ho++pIceeTm4Z70w1LfrP8l/ /MNhV0igsg/NFhxzx01McM/f2YeybAdMhqq9ELDHuwcqLyTSTjB2r7IzNnCFxVIJ Wa1OqETjmEUALgdTujAhWIV9WlZb6rHVGiStxMIL4xa45bxYDX6KDR62sS3R6v9L 7Qf3uGmTcsk= =X1cw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message