Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> > > You know, snmpd is not exactly the new thing... Why push the ugly
> > > interface into the kernel? Besides, if you want numbers - fine, just
> > > create your "numeric" tree and populate it with links to your heart's
> > > pleasure. Problem solved.
> > >
> >
> > Because everyone uses SNMP, and it would be a boon to have the numbers
> > centrally assigned. If people have to roll their own, the MIBs will be
> > incompatible, which will be bad for everyone.
>
> There is one problem with that (aside of the fact that SNMP is
> misdesigned) - you are pushing the maintainance of this repository into
> the kernel. Good luck - and Richard will be the first to become, erm,
> unhappy, judging by his reaction on another such repository. Device
> numbers, that is...
Uhh.. instead of magic, how about consolidating the format
strings printk() uses everywhere? Human readable interfaces
don't need picosecond point-shaving, so a page fault to get
a constant char[] shouldn't hurt too much.
A kernel scanf function might be useful, but not necessary
if the format strings were exported for userspace to play
with. In userspace, procfs utilities could use scanf with
the same format string printk uses to write.
This ought to reduce kernel size, at any rate.
Tom
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 07 2000 - 21:00:16 EST