From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 22:21:39 +0000 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Luis_Domingo_L=F3pez?= Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Writing forward compatible applications using /proc Message-ID: <20010812222139.A14464@dardhal.mired.net> References: <20010812135402.A452@dardhal.mired.net> <997636232.20870.2.camel@monster.omnifarious.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <997636232.20870.2.camel@monster.omnifarious.org> 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 Sunday, 12 August 2001, at 12:10:31 -0500, Eric M. Hopper wrote: > On 12 Aug 2001 13:54:02 +0000, Jos� Luis Domingo L�pez wrote: > > 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. > > > Check this linux kernel mailing list for the (still scarce) details about "removing" kernel tunables from /proc: http://uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0105.3/1439.html To be precise, dicussion about modifying existing /proc starts here: http://uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0105.3/1469.html There were not much discussion about the subject, but it seems that in 2.5.x /proc will just hold information about running processes. The rest is still to be defined :) Regards. -- 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