Herbert Poetzl <[email protected]> writes:
> hmm, isn't per process a little extreme ... I know
> what you want to accomplish but won't this lead to
> a per process procfs?
Where all of the values vary per process possibly, that
is they way /proc is supposed to be.
/proc/sys is the only case that I think really gets extreme.
For things like /proc/sysvipc and /proc/net it really is a natural
break, and /proc/mounts already shows that the technique works fine.
So I am trying to turn an ugly design choice into feature :)
> and, if you want to do per
> process procfs, what would be the gain?
>
> just my opinion ...
Under the covers the implementation is per namespace, but
it isn't easy to export it that way from procfs.
In any event this appears to be a way to implement these things
while retaining backwards compatibility, with the current implementation,
and it looks like it can be implemented fairly cleanly.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
