Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] kernel events layer | From | Robert Love <> | Date | Fri, 23 Jul 2004 23:14:41 -0400 |
| |
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 example.
> 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 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/
| |