[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
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:25, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:13, 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.
> Could you please give a specific case?

More to the point: what makes you think that this apparent ruggedness will
diminish after being re-integrated with sysfs? If you wish, you can avoid
any dangers by not using sysfs's vfs bypass api. It should be up to the
subsystem author.


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 01:37    [W:0.056 / U:2.156 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site