[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] kernel events layer
    On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 11:02 +0800, Michael Clark wrote:

    > Should there be some sharing with the device naming of sysfs or are
    > will we introduce a new one? ie sysfs uses:
    > devices/system/cpu/cpu0/<blah>
    > Would it be a better way to have a version that takes struct kobject
    > to enforce consistency in the device naming scheme. This also means
    > userspace would automatically know where to look in /sys if futher
    > info was needed.

    No, we want to give an interface that matches the sort of provider URI
    used by object systems such as CORBA, D-BUS, and DCOP. We also do _not_
    want to put policy in the kernel.

    The easiest way to avoid that is simply to use a name similar to the
    path name.

    Passing the sysfs name would probably be a good potential argument to
    the signal, though. The temperature signal in the patch is just an

    > Question is does it make sense to use this infrastructure without sysfs
    > as hald, etc require it. ie depends CONFIG_SYSFS

    That sounds like policy to me.

    Especially if drivers start using this for error logging, there are no
    ties to sysfs. Configuration dependencies tend to be hard build-time
    deps anyhow.

    Robert Love

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:0.023 / U:31.492 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site