[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 Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:28:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Joel Becker <> wrote:
> > 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?

The way that configfs and sysfs create/destroy dentries and
their associated inodes is very different from the top, yet similar from
the bottom. I suspect that some of it could be libraryized. When I
first looked started configfs, I was starting from an "add on to sysfs"
perspective, after all. The sysfs maintainers and I agreed, after much
discussion, that we should go to a separate tree.



"Here's a nickle -- get yourself a better X server."
- Keith Packard
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-08-31 02:05    [W:0.065 / U:11.092 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site