Subject: Re: kernel & libkvm [was IIci success]
To: Steve Allen <,>
From: Open Carefully -- Contents Under Pressure <>
List: current-users
Date: 01/10/1996 18:46:43
We don't seem to have anything that absolutely relies on procfs or
kernfs.  (If it ain't broke, don't fix it.)  Hackery on umount doesn't
really seem appropriate here -- it looks more like a band-aid than an
actual solution.

kernfs just makes information more readily available via 'files' as
opposed to groveling in the kernel for things like boottime, loadav
and the like.

procfs just makes similar information for processes available via 'files'.

Neither one is truly necessary for system operation, although they DO appear
to be performance treats, and they do allow for perusal via ls/stat/cat
as opposed to needing special permissions thru the kernel (standard
owner/group permissions seem to apply).

"Your chief has even inscribed his name on the sole of my boot."