From owner-freebsd-current Tue Sep 16 20:42:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA10475 for current-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:42:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.webspan.net (root@mail.webspan.net [206.154.70.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA10468 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:42:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from orion.webspan.net (orion.webspan.net [206.154.70.5]) by mail.webspan.net (WEBSPAN/970608) with ESMTP id XAA16026; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:42:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from orion.webspan.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by orion.webspan.net (WEBSPAN/970608) with ESMTP id XAA01582; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:42:31 -0400 (EDT) To: Alex cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG From: "Gary Palmer" Subject: Re: Does this idea have merit? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:39:10 PDT." Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:42:30 -0400 Message-ID: <1565.874467750@orion.webspan.net> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Alex wrote in message ID : > 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? kernfs is the proper place to put non-process related infromation. I am not at all comfortable with the linux idea of sticking everything possible into /proc ... kernfs is the `cleaner' place to put such info if you want to do file style I/O, or of course there is now sysctl, available through a syscall. Gary -- Gary Palmer FreeBSD Core Team Member FreeBSD: Turning PC's into workstations. See http://www.FreeBSD.ORG/ for info