| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:17:27 +0530 From: "Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com> To: "Stefan Seyfried" <seife@...e.de> Cc: "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>, Henne <henne@...htwindheim.de>, "Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>, "Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][BUTTON] remove procfs-interface On 7/16/07, Stefan Seyfried <seife@...e.de> wrote: > Holy sh*t. There is not even a functional replacement ready, but still > everybody wants to remove /proc/acpi. (Maybe the replacement started > to work recently, i have not looked into this area for the last months. > This does not change my pint, though). > This is not going to work. > IMNSHO, we need the new interface available and usable for quite some time > (i'd say for over one year), and then we can start to phase out the old > interface. > Starting with removing /proc/acpi is not the correct ordering of actions. Heh, you're 3 days late to the party, but yeah, Zhang's corrected me/ pointed this out (the functionality in /proc/acpi not yet in the sysfs I/F being used by said userspace tools) already. I guess I had originally misunderstood the "some user space tools still use the ACPI procfs" bit. Satyam - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists