[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs
Joel Becker <> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:54:39AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > But it would be stupid to forbid users from creating directories in sysfs or
> > to forbid kernel modules from directly tweaking a configfs namespace. Why
> > should the kernel not be able to add objects to a directory a user created?
> > It should be up to the module author to decide these things.
> This is precisely why configfs is separate from sysfs. If both
> user and kernel can create objects, the lifetime of the object and its
> filesystem representation is very complex. Sysfs already has problems
> with people getting this wrong. configfs does not.
> The fact that sysfs and configfs have similar backing stores
> does not make them the same thing.

Sure, but all that copying-and-pasting really sucks. I'm sure there's some
way of providing the slightly different semantics from the same codebase?
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: 2005-08-31 01:32    [W:0.126 / U:2.484 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site