Quoting Daniel Lezcano (dlezcano@xxxxxxxxxx): > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >On 11.06.2007 19:05, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > >>Quoting Cedric Le Goater (clg@xxxxxxxxxx): > >> > >>>should we continue to use /proc ? or switch to some other mechanisms > >>>like getnetlink (taskstats) to map kernel structures. > >>We want to avoid 'map'ping kernel structures, though, right? We can > >>dump the data in a more generic fashion through netlink, dunno what we > >>prefer. But this is very definately process information :), so /proc > >>does seem appropriate. > > > >While I agree that /proc seems appropriate, I see a few benefits of > >dumping the data through netlink: > >* Speed. IIRC there were benchmarks showing an advantage of netlink > > over /proc when communicating with userspace. Sorry, no idea where > > I read that. > >* Versioning. While we strive to have the perfect interface on the > > first try, changes might be necessary. I see no way to handle > > multiple versions of an interface in /proc without big headaches. > >* Conformity. With /proc, people often see a file, take a look at > > it and try to infer the structure of the file from what they see. > > This has led to multiple problems in the past when the content of > > some files in /proc changed slightly and tools broke. With > > netlink, implementers have to look at the spec to achieve anything > > useful. > > Right. And community seems to encourage to use the netlink and to stop > implementing new entry in /proc. > > http://kerneltrap.org/node/6637 That's not quite what that thread is saying :) For just this information, I would prefer /proc over netlink. But since we'll be dumping a whole bunch more data, I agree netlink may be the way to go. thanks, -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers