procfs ctl interface

[Eric van Gyzen]

On 02/24/2017 19:43, Eric Badger wrote:
> I started working on a change that will perturb procfs' ctl interface to some
> degree. In looking closer at procfs, it seems like it has been pretty well
> broken for use as a debugging interface since at least 9.3 (the oldest system I
> have handy). Is there any reason to maintain this interface at all? If anything,
> it should perhaps be made into an alternate front end for ptrace() rather than
> being entirely separate, but I'm not sure I see the value in that.

As I recall, the last in-tree consumer was gcore, but attilio@ switched it to 
ptrace in r199805.

If nobody mentions a significant consumer, garbage-collecting it sounds good to me.

Eric