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

Daniel Phillips
2001-11-05T03:33:47Z

On November 5, 2001 01:12 am, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2001 02:40:51 +0100
> Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net> wrote:
>
> > On November 2, 2001 03:20 am, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > I agree with the "one file, one value" idea.
> >
> > So cat /proc/partitions goes from being a nice, easy to read and use human
> > interface to something other than that. Lets not go overboard.
>
> Firstly, do not perpetuate the myth of /proc being "human readable". (Hint:
> what language do humans speak?) It supposed to be "admin readable" and
> "machine readable".

You're letting me out as a human, fair enough ;-)

> Secondly, it is possible to implement a table formatter which kicks in
> when someone does a read() on a directory. This is not a desirable format:
> look at /proc/mounts when you have a mount point with a space in it for a
> good example.

Yes, sold, if implementing the formatter is part of the plan.

Caveat: by profiling I've found that file ops on proc functions are already
eating a significant amount of cpu, going to one-value-per-file is going to
make that worse. But maybe this doesn't bother you.

--
Daniel