[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Requesting for review of the Draft proposal for - procfs
From: |
olafBuddenhagen |
Subject: |
Re: Requesting for review of the Draft proposal for - procfs |
Date: |
Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:26:36 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) |
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:07:53PM +0100, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> I was the student in GSoC last year, just thought I'd share my
> acquired wisdom and drop some comments on your proposal. :-)
Thanks for that :-)
> Also, procfs is mainly used to provide compatibility with linux. So,
> if /proc/<pid>/mem isn't used in linux it won't be used in the Hurd.
> (I'm not sure it isn't used, but you made it sound like that in your
> proposal.)
Indeed.
> As I see it, procfs should not be a single translator. Rather, there
> should be split into distinct parts, e.g. a couple of /very/ simple
> translators for `uptime', `version' etc. and one handling all the
> `<pid>' directories or possibly several ones merged together using
> unionfs.
Just what I think :-)
> Thus I think the best design of an IpPI would be to refine libnetfs
> into a libprocfs. To make it very easy if not trivial to write such
> translators.
I don't quite see the need for a special library here -- what would it
provide over plain libtrivfs?...
-antrik-
Re: Requesting for review of the Draft proposal for - procfs, olafBuddenhagen, 2008/03/27