Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:43:45 +0200 From: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, "Constantine A. Murenin" <cnst@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: sensors fun.. Message-ID: <200710172243.51958.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <52116.1192652445@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <52116.1192652445@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Wednesday 17 October 2007, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <47166BA5.1000100@elischer.org>, Julian Elischer writes: > >> Having a userland > >> interface also makes it easier to have backends that are entirely in > >> userland. > > > >maybe a loopback filesystem > > Just what is it that is so enticing about the kernel ? Why not simply > pass it to a daemon ? What I like about the OpenBSD framework is, that you can get the sensor data with basic tools. What's wrong with "everything is a file"? With a file system you don't have to jump through any hoops to provide concurrent access to more than one reader. You could easily create symlinks to map sensors to location. You have means to restrict access to certain sensors. etc. ... I'm not sure that you can write the one daemon that suites all needs, but if you provide all the sensors in a central place accessible through basic tools it's easy to write a shell script that does exactly what you need. -- /"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBHFnQHXyyEoT62BG0RAv95AJ9/fOumHwX315YdyO7YGIP47jsykgCfRt4p 8vAP+9ePG9A3AvXH5IXwa3U= =pFOY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200710172243.51958.max>