Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I agree that it's probably better to use /proc/drivers/<drivername>, and I
> > shouldn't have said /proc/sys/xxx. Although in this case I like "sys"
> > better than "driver" as a name (it's just the sysctl _tables_ I hate, not
> > the _name_ /proc/sys)
> aha, I hate sysctl tables too, now. So, you meant
> /proc/driver/<drivername> like it is done, e.g. by rtc. I see, so all
> you want is just a simple /proc/driver/microcode file which supports a
> single ioctl and not an entry in kernel/sysctl.c to be fiddled by
> sysctl(2) system call. I misunderstood you.
> Ok, I will come back with implementation when it is ready.
I *really* think this is a mistake for reasons previously explained.
This should be /dev/microcode or /dev/cpu/microcode (Richard is right,
it should be the latter.) If we want to virtualize it, it's time to
bite the bullet and make devfs do things right, not kluge it up ad
infinitum by adding hacks to /proc with *NO* permissions or anything...
-- <email@example.com> at work, <firstname.lastname@example.org> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:15 EST