Hi, On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:07:53PM +0100, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> I was the student in GSoC last year, just thought I'd share my > acquired wisdom and drop some comments on your proposal. :-) Thanks for that :-) > Also, procfs is mainly used to provide compatibility with linux. So, > if /proc/<pid>/mem isn't used in linux it won't be used in the Hurd. > (I'm not sure it isn't used, but you made it sound like that in your > proposal.) Indeed. > As I see it, procfs should not be a single translator. Rather, there > should be split into distinct parts, e.g. a couple of /very/ simple > translators for `uptime', `version' etc. and one handling all the > `<pid>' directories or possibly several ones merged together using > unionfs. Just what I think :-) > Thus I think the best design of an IpPI would be to refine libnetfs > into a libprocfs. To make it very easy if not trivial to write such > translators. I don't quite see the need for a special library here -- what would it provide over plain libtrivfs?... -antrik-
