From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 13:54:02 +0000 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Luis_Domingo_L=F3pez?= Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Writing forward compatible applications using /proc Message-ID: <20010812135402.A452@dardhal.mired.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20010811235718.A20414@linux.com> Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" To: linux-lvm@sistina.com On Saturday, 11 August 2001, at 23:57:18 -0400, Jason Tackaberry wrote: > [...] > I am curious if it's a silly idea to write an application that relies on > the data in /proc? Do the kernel developers attempt to keep the data > and format provided in /proc as stable as possible? Or is it fair game > for trivial changes that could break applications that parse it? Should > I use ioctl instead? > As far as I know, there are plans to remove much of the thingss that currently appear under /proc. It seems that only information about processes currently running will remain under /proc. Kernel parameters, system information, kernel variables and kernel tunables will probably disappear and will be replaced by some sort of user-space application that will allow query and modfication of kernel values and tunables. Something similar to Solaris' ndd, AFAIK. Greetings. -- Jos� Luis Domingo L�pez Linux Registered User #189436 Debian GNU/Linux Potato (P166 64 MB RAM) jdomingo EN internautas PUNTO org => � Spam ? Atente a las consecuencias jdomingo AT internautas DOT org => Spam at your own risk