On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
>I'd advocate we move from a "tough, use procfs" attitude to a "tough,
>use devfs" attitude. If you don't want to have devfs in your kernel,
>you wouldn't want procfs either (if being consistent). After all,
>devfs doesn't *have* to be mounted over /dev.
The alternative to devfs is what we already have, a working (maybe not
perfect, but working) /dev. And if you already have /dev (and use it),
what's the point of wasting memory on devfs which would duplicate things?
The alternative to /proc is digging through kernel memory. Since /proc
provides something that is practically required (process information), it's
not unrealistic (but not pretty either) to put information there as well.
-George Greer
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:33 EST