Re: [PATCH] 2.5 PROPOSAL: Replacement for current /proc of shit.

Rusty Russell
2001-11-02T02:17:00Z

On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:06:00 +0100
Tim Jansen <tim@tjansen.de> wrote:

> On Thursday 01 November 2001 11:32, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > I believe that rewriting /proc (and /proc/sys should simply die) is a
> > better solution than extending the interface, or avoiding it
> > altogether by using a new filesystem.
>
> I am currently working on something like this, too. It's using Patrick
> Mochel's driverfs patch
> (http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/mochel/device/driverfs.diff-1030)
> as a base and adds the functionality of the extensions that I did to proc fs
> for my device registry patch
> (http://www.tjansen.de/devreg/proc_ov-2.4.7.diff).

Hi Tim!

Firstly: obviously, I think that work on /proc is a worthy and excellent
thing to be doing: everyone has been complaining about it since its introduction
(for good reason).

I'm not sure about such explicit typing: see my patch (the existing types are
only for convenience: you can trivially supply your own). I agree with the
"one file, one value" idea. I also went for dynamic directories for those who
don't want to continually register/deregister.

I suggest you read my patch 8)
Rusty.