On 14/01/2008, Csaba Henk <csaba-ml_at_creo.hu> wrote: > On 2008-01-14, Igor Mozolevsky <igor_at_hybrid-lab.co.uk> wrote: > > On 14/01/2008, Nathan Lay <nslay_at_comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> cat'ing /dev/cpuinfo sounds reminiscent to Linux /proc. > > > > No it doesn't - it's a perfectly fine Unix way of doing things... The > > purpose of /dev is to provide an interface to the devices on the > > machine, (query-capable-)CPU is a device... Having /proc as an > > interface to the kernel on the other hand... > > Hm, I just fail to see the how the ioctl interface is different from > the sysctl interface in terms of semantic capabilites. You need to *define* the output of a sysctl, you don't have to produce any output in ioctl, just a boolean reply or a mask that can be processed with #define macros... I honestly don't see how all of that can be abstracted away in a MIB given that there is a number of Intel|AMD|Whoever feature/feature1, who knows when feature2 will be needed... If it can be done reasonably in a MIB, I won't say a word, but nobody's proposed any data representation for a (or a number of) MIB(s) yet... What's the overhead of sysctl vs ioctl? IgorReceived on Mon Jan 14 2008 - 14:47:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:25 UTC