Re: the "cluster" system call (and file system type)

["J . A . Magallon" <jamagallon@able.es>]

On 20010715 Jordi Polo wrote:
>
>> I think what people hate is polluting /proc in separate subtrees, like
>> putting things in /proc/sys/net/cluster, /proc/cpu/cluster, etc.
>> I thing thigs can be done in an transparent way defining a fake clusterfs,
>> with things like cluter_add_entry etc. that (by now) just call they
>> equivalents in proc_xxx, rooted at /proc/cluster. If sometine you have to
>> move the tree, well, just clone the proc_xxx functions to a new independent
>> tree.
>
>As far as i can see you are going to do a /proc-like fs outside /proc so as 
>david want the same but in /proc i think that we can begin to think in what 
>will be inside that directory and later we can put it in /proc or /cluster or 
>whatever. 
>We are just discussing the minor thing we'll have to decide, when we have all 
>we want to be inside that directory we can just ask linus where he wants it. 
>Maybe is just a matter of taste :P 
>

That's what I wanted to say, I did not make it very clear. If all the info and control
is to be in a file system, I see (I'm not a kernel hacker) two ways, devfs-like
and proc-like. I only see using proc as a fast hack to start using and designing
something that perhaps will need some special design or feature.
But using /proc to start work, people can focus on what features want there.


-- 
J.A. Magallon                           #  Let the source be with you...        
mailto:jamagallon@able.es
Mandrake Linux release 8.1 (Cooker) for i586
Linux werewolf 2.4.6-ac3 #1 SMP Sun Jul 15 01:23:01 CEST 2001 i686

Linux-cluster: generic cluster infrastructure for Linux
Archive:       http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-cluster/