Subject: Re: procfs/kernfs "required"? [was Re: kernel & libkvm... ]
To: None <Chris_G_Demetriou@NIAGARA.NECTAR.CS.CMU.EDU>
From: James Graham - Systems Anarchist <greywolf@defender.VAS.viewlogic.com>
Date: 01/12/1996 15:06:30
* > ...so tossing in /proc is negligible.
* Without even ATTEMPTING to state the size of adding procfs, where do
* you come off stating _that_?
Comparatively, it's negligible. It's still taking up less memory than
SunOS does. You really can't argue with that. :-)
* even if it's one page, that's one page that i'd rather have unwired
* and available for my applications...
Okay, great. Rip it out. I never said I wanted it "required", but the
person who said that one shouldn't be forced to rebuild ps every time
the kernel changes has a valid point. If procfs is present, it certainly
makes it more possible for ps not to need to grovel in the kernel.
Hopefully, something like procfs will eventually eliminate that need
altogether, at least for proc stats.
"We have discovered a bug in System V: the OS itself."