On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Patrick Mochel wrote:
> > ISTR /proc/pci being deprecated at one point in the past. It may have only
> > been discussed, though. In which case, is it possible to deprecate it?
> > lscpi(8) is considered a superior means to derive the same information.
> >
> > Elimination of it would eliminate a chunk of code in drivers/pci/proc.c,
> > and obviate the use of struct device::name by the PCI layer. This change
> > would probably allow us to remove the name field altogether, since PCI is
> > the only code that really relies on it (and only for /proc/pci AFAICT).
>
>
> Historically, this was a Linus call :)
Yeah, Randy said that about 30s before I got this. :)
> IIRC it was one of (a) deprecated, (b) removed, or (c) almost removed in
> the past, and Linus un-deprecated it. The logic back then was that it
> provides a quick summary of a lot of useful info, a la /proc/cpuinfo and
> /proc/meminfo. i.e. you don't need lspci installed, just been /bin/cat.
Ok, I can see that. But, are there really many systems that do not come
with lspci(8) pre-installed? I would expect that most distributions do; at
least the one I use does..
But, look the usage model. Who queries PCI information from the system? I
would argue a) developers, b) power users, and c) users hitting a bug.
a) are going to use lspci, since it's much more powerful. b) may use
either text format, but it's also likely they'll use a graphical tool.
Looking at my gnome setup, I do not find anything that lists PCI devices
(besides a file browser in sysfs :). And, c) are most likely going to use
lspci becaus a developer asks for it. I do not remember the last time I
saw someone ask for the output of /proc/pci. :)
> Personally, I think it would be nice to eliminate /proc/pci -- in favor
> of something that provides similar functionality from sysfs: "cat
> /sys/all-busses" or somesuch. I dunno how feasible that is. The main
> idea is to list as many attached devices as possible in one go, without
> having to cat 40 different files :) [unfortunately I think this means I
> am disagreeing with you ;)]
I totally agree with you. But, I don't think the answer is in
consolidating files; I think it's in writing intelligent and efficient
tools to grok that data.
> I do grant you it would make various __init sections and in-memory
> structures smaller if we eliminated the names... do we want to? Sure
> we have lseisa and lspci and lsusb, et. al. Does that obviate the need
> for a simple summary of attached hardware?
IMO, yes, since those tools provide the summary, and exist almost purely
in userspace. I forgot to mention in the orginal email that we could
also drop the PCI names database, right? This would save a considerable
amount in the kernel image alone..
-pat
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 22:00:28 EST