Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 23:56:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 23:56:07 -0500 Received: from mail1.amc.com.au ([203.15.175.2]:23046 "HELO mail1.amc.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 23:56:02 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011105154947.01f6fec0@mail.amc.localnet> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 15:55:58 +1100 To: Alexander Viro From: Stuart Young Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011105144855.01f83310@mail.amc.localnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At 11:05 PM 4/11/01 -0500, Alexander Viro wrote: >On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Stuart Young wrote: > > > Any reason we can't move all the process info into something like > > /proc/pid/* instead of in the root /proc tree? > >Thanks, but no thanks. If we are starting to move stuff around, we >would be much better off leaving in /proc only what it was supposed >to contain - per-process information. That's fair.. so (this is all speculation of course) move everything else but process info out of there? I could handle that, makes sense, long as we had some backward "transitional" interface, that warned about using old interfaces. Only question is, where would we put this information in the file system tree? AMC Enterprises P/L - Stuart Young First Floor - Network and Systems Admin 3 Chesterville Rd - sgy@amc.com.au Cheltenham Vic 3192 - Ph: (03) 9584-2700 http://www.amc.com.au/ - Fax: (03) 9584-2755 - 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/