In article <F57jukJ1zkc6g9wHRQa0000b09f@hotmail.com>,
William Knop <w_knop@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, but I meant a program which reads a single binary value and >outputs
>>it as ascii, as a generic layer between the binary /proc and >the ascii
>>world of shell scripts.
>>
>>I don't like a binary /proc.
>
>The binary issue could very easily be solved, as you said, by a small
>generic program to do the conversion. Upside it only shell scripts need
>this, while more advanced (lower level) programs will get better preformance
>out of binary format. Downside? I am not sure I see the problem. If a
>program needs to get a lot of /proc info frequently, a binary interface will
>be faster. Idealistically, do we want the kernel interfaces binary or ascii?
>Do we want them to preform best with (be native to) shell scripts or
>programs?
Both. /proc in ascii for shell scripts etc, and sysctl() in binary
for C programs and the like.
Something like
sysctl(SYSCTL_GET, "fs.file-max", SYSCTL_TYPE_INT, &val, sizeof(val))
It gets you free type checking as well.
Perhaps you even want a opendir()/getdents() type sysctl function
so you can walk the tree without /proc being mounted at all.
Mike.
-- "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" -- Albert Einstein.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 07 2001 - 21:00:36 EST