Re: PROPOSAL: /proc standards (was dot-proc interface [was: /proc

• Next message: Stephen Satchell: "Re: Yet another design for /proc. Or actually /kernel."
• Previous message: William Lee Irwin III: "Re: [RFC] bootmem for 2.5"
• In reply to: Alex Bligh - linux-kernel: "Re: PROPOSAL: /proc standards (was dot-proc interface [was: /proc"
• Next in thread: Martin Dalecki: "Re: PROPOSAL: /proc standards (was dot-proc interface [was: /proc"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Alex Bligh - linux writes:

> sure it's easier to strip out a spurious 'kb' that
> gets added after a number, than to deal with (say)
> an extra inserted DWORD with no version traching.

Design the kernel to make doing this difficult.
Define some offsets as follows:

#define FOO_PID 0
#define FOO_PPID 1

Now, how is anyone going to create "an extra inserted DWORD"
between those? They'd need to renumber FOO_PPID and any other
values that come after it.

The "DWORD" idea is messed up too BTW. Use __u64 everywhere.
-
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/

• Next message: Stephen Satchell: "Re: Yet another design for /proc. Or actually /kernel."
• Previous message: William Lee Irwin III: "Re: [RFC] bootmem for 2.5"
• In reply to: Alex Bligh - linux-kernel: "Re: PROPOSAL: /proc standards (was dot-proc interface [was: /proc"
• Next in thread: Martin Dalecki: "Re: PROPOSAL: /proc standards (was dot-proc interface [was: /proc"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 07 2001 - 21:00:37 EST