[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Is configfs the right solution for configuration based fs?
    On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 10:12 +1000, Ben Nizette wrote:
    > On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 11:03 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
    > > Personally, I have a few issues with this:
    > > 1) why bother with a second configuration interface that we have to
    > > maintain, adjust, ...? if we need scriptable access, then make a
    > > good userspace tool that is scriptable.
    > What's the first one, sysfs..? ioctl (eww..)?


    > > 2) string-based stuff is often messy, especially the varying attributes
    > > like MAC addresses etc. Unless we just use binary files again, which
    > > is not very useful again. Take, for example, the monitor flags. If
    > > we use the same flags then nobody really knows what's up
    > > (echo 0x3 > mntr_flags?) and if we use strings then we cannot easily
    > > ever rename the flag while keeping ABI/API compatibility.
    > Not sure I see the argument here, why would you want to change the flag
    > name? If you decide the old name is stupid then can't you just alias
    > the old name to the new one?

    Sure can do, but it just adds a lot of complexity to the kernel. I don't
    see the point, it's not like you need a lot of code to build netlink
    messages. Heck, I've done it by _hand_ and used just netlink sockets.
    It's not a lot of code.

    > String handling is always a bit iffy, though it has to be done
    > somewhere, either in kernel or in your "good userspace tool which is
    > scriptable". I'd prefer to have it done once, well, in the kernel and
    > not have to ship more software than necessary.

    I personally prefer to put it into userspace.

    > > 3) afaik configfs doesn't actually support the mkdir, ... stuff yet
    > > that you want for virtual interfaces.
    > It has all the mkdir stuff I can think of, can you elaborate? It
    > doesn't have the commitable object support but I just have an 'enabled'
    > attribute in there to switch the thing on and off.

    I don't remember the specifics, it's been a while, I guess I could be
    thinking of the commitable object support; mostly we'd want to configure
    many things in one go, even on a live object. Without disabling that
    object first, obviously.

    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-06-10 10:05    [W:0.033 / U:20.108 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site