Re: 2.1.120 - too many errors on the network interfaces
Andi Kleen (ak@muc.de)
Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:12:28 +0200
On Sun, Sep 20, 1998 at 05:06:10PM +0200, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> In message <m3k92yhm7i.fsf@fred.muc.de>, Andi Kleen writes:
> +-----
> | allbery@kf8nh.apk.net (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH) writes:
> | > them fall short), but it does seem silly that proc doesn't include version
> | > numbers. Would it really be that painful to have the first line of a /proc
> | > file be an interface version number? Old utilities that don't know about i
> |
> | This is totally unnecessary if you write robust /proc parsers.
> +--->8
>
> And this helps Alex with his /proc/cpuinfo conundrum exactly how? Robust
> parsing can only take you so far; it assumes that the contents of /proc are
> consistent between platforms and Linux revisions. When (not if) they
> aren't, you have a problem that only a version number can help you deal with
> sensibly (I should not have to parse 70% of a /proc file to find that it's
> not actually compatible with what I'm expecting...).
Versions numbers are evil to text filters and should be avoided IMHO.
-Andi (who likes his pipes without special cases)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/