Re: system calls, like uname
And lo, the chronicles report that Robert W. Current spake thusly unto the masses:
>
> So, I think I am inclined to disagree. I don't think something like
> uname would be in the scope of kernel development.
Actually, uname is already in the scope of kernel development: it's a system call- uname(2)
The original poster was saying that there should be another system call which returns information
about the hardware. I personally think the kernel already has a way to return hardware information:
it's called the proc filesystem. But whether you feel this functionality belongs in the kernel or
userland is irrelevant here, since if there isn't anything already which does this, I don't think LSB
should conjure one up.
If you think it belongs in the kernel, it should be discussed on the kernel lists.
If you think it belongs as an app then find some developers who agree and are willing to work
on it.
Either way, LSB shouldn't be concerned with it until there is something there to be concerned with.
>
> Aaron Gaudio wrote:
> >
> > I don't think this is in the scope of the LSB until someone
> > does it and it beomes accepted usage.
> > AFAIK, the LSB is not the business of adding new and untested
> > features to software (including the kernel). The first step for
> > something like this is to get the kernel developers to agree to it;
> > perhaps you should try the kernel-devel list.
> >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > On Behalf Of Robert W. Current
> > >
> > > I suggest a general system call be implemented to obtain information
> > > about hardware.
>
--
Aaron Gaudio
icy_manipulator @ mindless.com
http://www.rit.edu/~adg1653
--------------
"The fool finds ignorance all around him. The wise man finds ignorance within."
--------------
Use of any of my email addresses is subject to the terms found at
http://www.rit.edu/~adg1653/email.shtml. By using any of my addresses, you
agree to be bound by the terms therein.
Reply to: