On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 10:12 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:49:07 -0800 Greg KH wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 12:42:07AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 06:44:49PM +0100, Remi Colinet wrote: > > > > This patch add a new /proc/mempool file in order to display mempool usage. > > > > > > > > The feature can be disabled with CONFIG_PROC_MEMPOOL=N during kernel > > > > configuration. > > > > > > We're NOT adding config option per proc file. > > > > > > And can we, please, freeze /proc for not per-process stuff and open debugfs > > > for random stuff, please? > > > > debugfs has been open for random stuff since the day it was added to the > > tree :) > > > > Feel free to put this kind of thing there instead of proc. > > Do distros ship with debugfs enabled? > The problem with using debugfs is that it is very optional IMO. The problem with debugfs is that it claims to not be an ABI but it is lying. Distributions ship tools that depend on portions of debugfs. And they also ship debugfs in their kernel. So it is effectively the same as /proc, except with the 1.0-era everything-goes attitude rather than the 2.6-era we-should-really-think-about-this one. Pushing stuff from procfs to debugfs is thus just setting us up for pain down the road. Don't do it. In five years, we'll discover we can't turn debugfs off or even clean it up because too much relies on it. If you think that debugfs is NOT an ABI, then I'm sure you'll be happy to ack my patch entitled 'gratuitously break usbmon to remind folks that debugfs is not an ABI'. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
