![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 02:56:38AM +0000, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote: > One note: please, please, let's put a moratorium on sysfs-related patches > that didn't go through review. We are just getting netdev situation in > the main tree under control. It took nearly half a year (if not more). [...] > If you are doing any sysfs integration - *fix* *lifetime* *rules* *first*. There appears to be a lot of developer activity concentrated on getting sysfs support in various parts of the kernel, and this inevitably leads to a reworking of kernel object lifetime rules. I have to wonder if making these lifetime changes is really a good idea. Sysfs appears to be mainly used for exporting various adhoc pieces of information and occasionally for getting various tuning input. This functionality is generally ancillary to the main purpose of the subsystems/drivers that use sysfs. It seems backward to me that the lifetime rules of an object should be dominated by this ancillary functionality. So, my question - is it really a good idea to rework much of the kernel object lifetime rules just to support sysfs? And a related question - couldn't sysfs be taught to atomically drop its references to external kernel objects and thus obviate the need for all these lifetime rule changes? -Kevin -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- | Kevin O'Connor "BTW, IMHO we need a FAQ for | | kevin@koconnor.net 'IMHO', 'FAQ', 'BTW', etc. !" | --------------------------------------------------------------------- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||