Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:24:38 -0700 (PDT) | From | Patrick Mochel <> | Subject | Re: [bk/patch] driver model update: device_unregister() |
| |
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Patrick Mochel wrote: > > > > No problem; I'll do that today. But, I also think some of the stuff in > > fs/partitions/check.c is bogus and should die. Partitions are not devices, > > and shouldn't be treated as such. > > I think that is a valid argument as long as it's called "driverfs" or > something, but since the thing is clearly evolving into a "kernelfs" and > has drivers and devices as only a part of its structure knowledge, and is > used to expose various kernel hierarchies and relationships, I actually > think that it makes sense to expose the relationship of partitions to > devices. > > (Not that it has to use "struct device" to do so, of course, although I > don't see any major reason why it couldn't..)
I agree that it is useful to expose the partitions of devices via the filesystem, but struct device seems way too heavy-handed to describe them. I think they would be better off as a single attribute file that dumped the partition data about the disk.
You would have something like:
/sys/class/disk/ |-- devices | | `-- 0 -> ../../../root/wherever
and in 'wherever':
/sys/root/wherever/ |-- partitions
I dunno about the format; or if we would want one file or one per partition.
> What's the oops due to?
Sorry, I take it back. It wasn't an oops; it was a backtrace due to the partitions being removed during an illegal context.
-pat
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |