On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 15:05 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 15:01 -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > > So is there an argument against moving to reporting things like > > membership (and maybe arbitrary stats) via sysfs rather than configfs? > > Is there a reason to do it, other than keeping configfs simple? > > Seems fine to me, otherwise. Frankly, if we're talking about _process_ > grouping, does it make some sense to put these things in /proc?
I think there are multiple limitations in /proc (that i can immediately think of) that doesn't allow this type of usage (correct me if these are available): - user creating directories (must have) - in kernel callback function associated with directory creation. - ability (in kernel) to create _directory specific files_ in the callback function > > -- Dave > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > ckrm-tech mailing list > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose.... - [EMAIL PROTECTED] | .......you may get it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
