[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] kernel events layer
On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 11:02 +0800, Michael Clark wrote:

> Should there be some sharing with the device naming of sysfs or are
> will we introduce a new one? ie sysfs uses:
> devices/system/cpu/cpu0/<blah>
> Would it be a better way to have a version that takes struct kobject
> to enforce consistency in the device naming scheme. This also means
> userspace would automatically know where to look in /sys if futher
> info was needed.

No, we want to give an interface that matches the sort of provider URI
used by object systems such as CORBA, D-BUS, and DCOP. We also do _not_
want to put policy in the kernel.

The easiest way to avoid that is simply to use a name similar to the
path name.

Passing the sysfs name would probably be a good potential argument to
the signal, though. The temperature signal in the patch is just an

> Question is does it make sense to use this infrastructure without sysfs
> as hald, etc require it. ie depends CONFIG_SYSFS

That sounds like policy to me.

Especially if drivers start using this for error logging, there are no
ties to sysfs. Configuration dependencies tend to be hard build-time
deps anyhow.

Robert Love

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: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:0.135 / U:6.260 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site