On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 21:22 +1000, Douglas Gilbert wrote: > Is there any such policy? Yes, there is. It's not actually mine, it's the direction coming out of several kernel summits. /proc is to be moved back to handling process information. /sys should be used for other ancillary information exporting. This policy can be interpreted with some elasticity depending on what an author wants to do. > Christoph Hellwig previously has used this purported policy > to reject scsi procfs bug fixes: > "[PATCH] scsi: /proc/scsi/scsi patch for large number of devices" > As for alternate tools to 'cat /proc/scsi/scsi', I > am not aware of many distributions using lsscsi (debian > and gentoo do), perhaps there are other tools. I > suspect a lot of folks are still using 'cat /proc/scsi/scsi'. /proc/scsi/scsi has an awful lot of failure cases. The most annoying one seems to be periodically losing hot added devices. The reason for not fixing something if it's not a severe bug is simply that if we keep /proc/scsi/scsi fully functional and up to date, then the distributions will have no incentive to move away from it. > Does Christoph Hellwig have the right to NACK/veto > etc work that is not his when you are the SCSI maintainer? Technically no-one truly gets a veto since there are many ways code can end up in the vanilla kernel; however, everyone gets to express their opinion ... James - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
