On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 09:00:22AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> I have to admit that adding another filesystem that is very like procfs or
> >> sysfs make some kind of redundancy.
> >
> >Why?  The main issue is the discussion usually goes like this:
> >
> >Me:  Hey, the /proc/driver/foo/foo_value really shouldn't be in proc.
> >Developer:  Ok, but it has a lot of really good debug stuff in it.  Can
> >I put it in sysfs?
> >Me:  No, sysfs is for one-value-per-file whenever possible.  It needs to
> >go somewhere else.
> >Developer:  Well, if you don't have anywhere else to put it, why are you
> >even bringing this up at all.  Go away and leave me alone.
> 
> So how about adding seqfiles (or multi-value-per-file things) to sysfs?

No, that is not going to happen, as it is directly opposite to how sysfs
is supposed to work (one _single_ value per file).

thanks,

greg k-h
-
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/