linux-kernel - Re: Generic battery interface

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:13:57 +0300
From:	"Shem Multinymous" <multinymous@...il.com>
To:	"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>
Cc:	"Pavel Machek" <pavel@...e.cz>,
	"Matthew Garrett" <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, vojtech@...e.cz,
	"kernel list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-thinkpad@...ux-thinkpad.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Generic battery interface

On 7/28/06, Brown, Len <len.brown@...el.com> wrote:
> good for shell scripts, not clear it is better for C programs
> that have to open a bunch of files by name.

> Wonderful, but isn't the key here how simple it is for HAL
> or X to understand and use the kernel API rather than the
> developers of the kernel driver that implements the API?

For a C program it's just open()+fscanf()+close(). You can easily wrap
it up in a 10-line function, and that's probably what HAL and friends
are already doing.

Anyway, I was just pointing out a practical advantage. The decision
about sysfs's textual interface has already been taken, for better or
worse, and I don't think it's good to invent a totally new interface
unless there's a strong technical reason why the sysfs model is
inappropriate for this task.

  Shem
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/