Re: procfs problems
Tim Hollebeek (tim@franck.Princeton.EDU)
Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:32:20 -0400 (EDT)
H. Peter Anvin writes ...
>
> >
> > > Those of you interested in discussing design flaws with the current procfs
> > > filesystem, take a look at
> > >
> > > http://www.anime.net/~goemon/procfs.html
> > >
> > > I invite comments.
> >
> > Well regarding your /proc/cpuinfo format, I think we could fix this
> > problem by just making sure that the very first line of the cpuinfo
> > holds the port name.
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > /proc/cpuinfo:
> > port : {i386,alpha,sparc,ppc,mips}
> >
> > And then, if people want to parse any of the extra information, they
> > should know the architecture specific information on the CPU before
> > attempting to parse it.
>
> Isn't that what uname -m is supposed to do?
>
> Pet peeve: uname -m should return i386 on all systems. If we want to
> make the processor generation visible via uname, I think we should
> make uname -p work.
Pet peeve: that would break at least one of my programs that relies on the
current behavior to detect Pentiums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hollebeek | Disclaimer :=> Everything above is a true statement,
Electron Psychologist | for sufficiently false values of true.
Princeton University | email: tim@wfn-shop.princeton.edu
----------------------| http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim (NEW! IMPROVED!)