> Dunno about ioctl (I've seen lots of schemes proposed and used, and
> all of them fall short), but it does seem silly that proc doesn't
> include version numbers. Would it really be that painful to have the
> first line of a /proc file be an interface version number? Old
> utilities that don't know about it would have to be replaced, but
> right now that ends up being true anyway and with no warning other
> than a paragraph buried in some text file. Worse, if you have to
> dual-boot between kernels with incompatible /proc file formats, you
> can't easily deal with both from a single utility: but with version
> numbers, a utility could invoke code conditionally on the version
> number or even run a backend selected by version number
> (/usr/lib/backend.d/ifconfig/X. Y, anyone?).
I have had some problems parsing /proc/cpuinfos on different
architectures. I hope you have seen my message about it earlier today.
Cheers,
Alex
-- /\_/\ Legalise cannabis now! ( o.o ) Grow some cannabis today! > ^ < Peace, Love, Unity and Respect to all.http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk - *new* - rewritten for text browser users!
Linux tahallah 2.1.122 #43 Sat Sep 19 10:54:36 EDT 1998 One AMD 486 DX/4 processor, 49.77 total bogomips, 32M RAM
- 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/