Re: Choice of "XT PIC" in /proc/interrupts
Richard Gooch (Richard.Gooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU)
Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:44:43 +1000
Albert D. Cahalan writes:
>
> > I've kind of wondered this ever since the new format went into
> > the kernel. Wouldn't the interrupts above 8 be considered AT
> > interrupts? The 0 thru 8 were on the XT and then they kludged
> > in another PIC that was cascaded from 2 to 9.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Maybe just a simple "Standard PIC" on UP boxes and "APIC" for
> > SMP boxes would be appropriate.
> >
> > Seeing "XT PIC" on makes it sound like my system is ooooooold. :)
>
>
> The "file" is not very parsable with the space in some entries.
>
> Proposal:
>
> XT-PIC (note the '-' character)
> AT-PIC
> APIC
>
> In general:
>
> 1. avoid headers
> 2. add lines to the end
> 3. add columns to the right -- but only if you must
> 4. avoid whitespace inside entries
> 5. escape anything from users
> 6. avoid dumb changes, like "SigCgt" to "SigCat" in /proc/$$/status
> 7. [anyone else have suggestions?]
I don't agree with (1). It makes it easier for users to know what the
fields mean. However, I do take the point about parse-ability. I
suggest that headers be prefixed by a '#' character at the beginning
of the line.
Regards,
Richard....
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu