Edmund R. MacKenty wrote:
Fargusson.Alan writes:
I think procfs is definitely the wrong place. It should have process
specific stuff only. I even think that new procfs entries will be
rejected in the mainline kernel.
I know there is some stuff in procfs right now that isn't process
specific, but I have also seen patches rejected because they put stuff in
procfs that was not process specific. Usually these ended up in sysfs.
True, but this tool has to run under 2.4.* kernels too, where there is no
sysfs. In that case, it should go in procfs. For 2.6.* and future
kernels, it does belong in sysfs. We've got to support the old stuff too.
Make the tool look in both places (or allow it to be told).
firmware.agent checks and can use procfs or sysfs.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
do not reply off-list
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
