Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 00:30:14 -0600 From: Chris Costello <chris@calldei.com> To: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/miscfs/linprocfs linprocfs_misc.c Message-ID: <20000326003014.D18325@holly.calldei.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003260052580.15890-100000@green.dyndns.org> References: <200003251941.LAA67435@freefall.freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003260052580.15890-100000@green.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday, March 26, 2000, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > What's the point, exactly? This linprocfs is kinda lame, in the > traditional sense of the word. Shouldn't it have the features > which the regular procfs has, too? Linux procfs doesn't only have > an "exe" file in the pid-directories. This linprocfs seems to only > have some of the "differences" between the two, and doesn't form the > necessary "full" procfs. I'm sure some VFS work could be done to > make the pid dirs unions, but why can't the missing functions/files > from the original procfs be duplicated in linprocfs, as a simple > solution? Right now, I just don't see the good in linprocfs. I really think this should be a part of the Linux emulator if anything. This just seems like we're only encouraging the use of bad interfaces. -- |Chris Costello <chris@calldei.com> |Can I yell "movie" in a crowded firehouse?? `-------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000326003014.D18325>