[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: sysfs sys/kernel/ namespace (was Re: [PATCH 0/2] add new notifier function ,take2)
    On Thursday 25 October 2007 15:45, Greg KH wrote:
    > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 12:31:06PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > > On Wednesday 24 October 2007 21:12, Kay Sievers wrote:
    > > > On 10/24/07, Nick Piggin <> wrote:

    > > > It was intended to be something like /proc/sys/kernel/ only.
    > >
    > > Really? So you'd be happy to have a /sys/dev /sys/fs /sys/kernel
    > > /sys/net /sys/vm etc? "kernel" to me shouldn't really imply the
    > > stuff under the kernel/ source directory or other random stuff
    > > that doesn't fit into another directory, but attributes that are
    > > directly related to the kernel software (rather than directly
    > > associated with any device).
    > What would you want in /sys/net and /sys/dev and /sys/vm? I don't mind
    > putting subdirs in /sys/kernel/ if you want it.

    I guess potentially things that are today in /proc/sys/*. Sysfs is much
    closer to the "right" place for this kind of attributes than procfs,
    isn't it?

    > > It would be nice to get a sysfs content maintainer or two. Just
    > > having new additions occasionally reviewed along with the rest of
    > > a patch, by random people, doesn't really aid consistency. Would it
    > > be much trouble to ask that _all_ additions to sysfs be accompanied
    > > by notification to this maintainer, along with a few line description?
    > > (then merge would require SOB from said maintainer).
    > No, I would _love_ that. We should make the requirement that all new
    > sysfs files be documented in Documentation/API/ like that details.

    Obviously I'm for that too. A mandatory cc to a linux-abi list,
    documentation, and an acked-by from the relevant API maintainers, etc.
    All it needs is upstream to agree and sometime to implement it.

    > I'll be glad to review it, but as it's pretty trivial to add sysfs
    > files, everyone ends up doing it :)

    If it fits with the overall direction that yourself / Kay / everyone
    else has in mind, then yes. Problem is that if this stuff goes
    unreviewed, or reviewed by different people who don't have a coherent
    idea of what the API should look like, then it ends in a mess that you
    can't fix easily.
    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: 2007-10-25 08:21    [W:0.022 / U:43.528 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site