Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Dec 2004 22:20:57 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: /sys/block vs. /sys/class/block |
| |
On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 03:34:49PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:07:50 +0100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > > > > Because /sys/block happened before /sys/class did. Al Viro converted > > > the block layer before I got the struct class stuff working properly > > > during 2.5. > > > > > > And yes, I would like to convert the block layer to use the class stuff, > > > but for right now, I can't as class devices don't allow > > > sub-classes-devices, and getting to that work is _way_ down on my list > > > of things to do. > > > > but can't we at least artificially move it down to /sys/class anyway for > > the sake of a sane userland API ? > > Can I then make the obvious suggestion: add a symlink in /sys/class > linking to /sys/block and then reverse the symink once the above work has > been done and /sys/class/block has been created? > > Or is that too gross? :-)
It is gross.
But I guess I should ask, who really cares about this, so late in the sysfs structure game? Is /sys/block/ really a big problem for anyone? And if it is, I'd much rather someone make the required driver core changes to fix this up properly, than just put a symlink to paper over some userspace issue.
And as Dan said, libsysfs already handles /sys/block just like any other class structure, so a "sane" userland API already exists that fixes this issue for you.
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/
| |