[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44D765E3.9040206@sw.ru>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:10:11 +0400
From: Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
CC: nagar@...son.ibm.com, akpm@...l.org, vatsa@...ibm.com,
mingo@...e.hu, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, sam@...ain.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dev@...nvz.org, efault@....de,
balbir@...ibm.com, sekharan@...ibm.com, haveblue@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [ProbableSpam] Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource
Management - A cpu controller
>>>A filesystem based interface is useful when you have hierarchies (as resource
>>>groups and cpusets do) since it naturally defines a convenient to use
>>>hierarchical namespace.
>>
>>but it is not much convinient for applications then.
>
>
> Is this simply a language issue? File systems hierarchies
> are more easily manipulated with shell utilities (ls, cat,
> find, grep, ...) and system call API's are easier to access
> from C?
>
> If so, then perhaps all that's lacking for convenient C access
> to a filesystem based interface is a good library, that presents
> an API convenient for use from C code, but underneath makes the
> necessary file system calls (open, read, diropen, stat, ...).
IMHO:
file system APIs are not good for accessing attributed data.
e.g. we have a /proc which is very convenient for use from shell etc. but
is not good for applications, not fast enough etc.
moreover, /proc had always problems with locking, races and people tend to
feel like they can change text presention of data, while applications parsing
it tend to break.
Kirill
-
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