On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:13:31 -0600 Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 10:12 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:49:07 -0800 Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 12:42:07AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 06:44:49PM +0100, Remi Colinet wrote: > > > > > This patch add a new /proc/mempool file in order to display mempool > > > > > usage. > > > > > > > > > > The feature can be disabled with CONFIG_PROC_MEMPOOL=N during kernel > > > > > configuration. > > > > > > > > We're NOT adding config option per proc file. > > > > > > > > And can we, please, freeze /proc for not per-process stuff and open > > > > debugfs > > > > for random stuff, please? > > > > > > debugfs has been open for random stuff since the day it was added to the > > > tree :) > > > > > > Feel free to put this kind of thing there instead of proc. > > > > Do distros ship with debugfs enabled? > > The problem with using debugfs is that it is very optional IMO. > > The problem with debugfs is that it claims to not be an ABI but it is > lying. Distributions ship tools that depend on portions of debugfs. And > they also ship debugfs in their kernel. So it is effectively the same > as /proc, except with the 1.0-era everything-goes attitude rather than > the 2.6-era we-should-really-think-about-this one. > > Pushing stuff from procfs to debugfs is thus just setting us up for pain > down the road. Don't do it. In five years, we'll discover we can't turn > debugfs off or even clean it up because too much relies on it. > > If you think that debugfs is NOT an ABI, then I'm sure you'll be happy > to ack my patch entitled 'gratuitously break usbmon to remind folks that > debugfs is not an ABI'. ^^ yup. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
