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

Rusty Russell
2001-11-08T01:35:34Z

On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 10:46:44 -0500
Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 09:48:52AM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >
> > What concerns me most is the pain involved in writing a /proc or
> > sysctl interface in the kernel today. Take kernel/module.c's
> > get_ksyms_list as a typical example: 45 lines of code to perform a
> > very trivial task. And this code is sitting in your kernel whether
> > proc is enabled or not. Now, I'm a huge Al Viro fan, but his proposed
> > improvements are in the wrong direction, IMHO.
>
> I'm all for simplifying the internal kernel interfaces. What I'm not
> at *all* convinced about is that it's worth it to make serious changes
> to the layout of /proc, /proc/sys, etc. And the concept of being able
> to very rapidly and easily get at system configuration variables
> without needing to make sure that /proc is mounted is a very, very
> good thing.

As these threads show, this is a big argument, involving:
1) What should the in-kernel interface look like?
2) What should the userspace interface look like?
3) Should there be a sysctl interface overlap?

I'm trying to nail down (1). Whether there is a new backwards
compatible sysctl() which takes a name instead of a number, and/or
whether the whole thing should be done in userspace, I am not going
to address.

Rusty.