tech-kern archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: "Rewriting kernfs and procfs" - GSoC'12
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:35:13 +0900
Julio Merino <jmmv%julipedia.org@localhost> wrote:
> Personally, I'd also like to see this project done. It was at one point
> an idea I wanted to work on, but then lost the time to do so and
> forgotten about it completely.
I was initially reticent to reply to this thread at this time, because
some details might be out of the scope of the GSoC project. But I
think that those questions are important to consider in the design of a
new procfs implementation, and the project description was very
summary, so I decided to post them anyway:
It was nice to be able to mount procfs with -o linux when I used Linux
binary compatibility. Are there other scenarios where it is required?
If not, should a new implementation simply be as compatible as possible
with Linux, such that -o linux not be necessary? Even some supposedly
portable software occasionally now expect a Linux-compatible procfs
tree.
Otherwise, I think that currently NetBSD doesn't make use of it, as
kernfs and procfs are not mounted on my systems. Is there
functionality that it should provide which
sysctl/vmstat/pmap/fstat/drvctl don't? While on Linux it's used as a
central repository for a lot of information, I regularily stumble on
ad-hoc parsers in a number of applications that query from it,
wondering why they didn't export that information via sysctl...
If it should diverge from Linux and still support -o linux, is there
a particular hierarchical direction it should respect, and suggested
file format(s), i.e. plist is an example, which applications could
parse using a supplied library? Or should the data be in a format
designed for human reading only, with sysctl used for software? I
doubt that a new implementation needs to remain compatible with the
traditional 4.4BSD procfs hierarchy, as it's not really being used by
software yet.
I once thought that it might be useful to export procfs via NFS,
but our current implementation doesn't support it. Is this something
that a new implementation should allow?
Thanks,
--
Matt
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index |
Old Index