> On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, David Parsons wrote:
> > Dan Hollis wrote:
> > > On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, David Parsons wrote:
> > > > > Isnt this what /proc/bus/pci is for? That is, parsing binary will be much
> > > > > cleaner fashion than parsing text strings out of a funky formatted text
> > > > > file.
> > > > Except that /proc/pci is backwards compatable.
> > > backwards compatible for what?
> > People who want to build code that works on 2.0.x, 2.2.x, and 2.3.x.
>
> Which programs depend on /proc/pci ?
User's habits. ;-)
You seem to want to kill /proc/pci.
At a rough approximate, such a table without any king of space
optimization should not be greater than 16KB. Even twice this value does
not look unacceptable bloat to me, given the actual size of any kernel
ready to run for common configurations and common bloatwares we are using
from userland (Netscape, Emacs, Gcc, Perl, Bash and others as the Java
monstrosity really donnot care of sparing these 16KB of memory you seem to
worry about).
If you really want to spare this fiew memory, may-be this information
should be made available as a data file than can be read from the
kernel, from a userland tool, and from some library function as well.
Gérard.
-
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/