[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs
    On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:28, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > Joel Becker <> wrote:
    > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:54:39AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
    > > > But it would be stupid to forbid users from creating directories in
    > > > sysfs or to forbid kernel modules from directly tweaking a configfs
    > > > namespace. Why should the kernel not be able to add objects to a
    > > > directory a user created? It should be up to the module author to
    > > > decide these things.
    > >
    > > This is precisely why configfs is separate from sysfs. If both
    > > user and kernel can create objects, the lifetime of the object and its
    > > filesystem representation is very complex. Sysfs already has problems
    > > with people getting this wrong. configfs does not.
    > > The fact that sysfs and configfs have similar backing stores
    > > does not make them the same thing.
    > Sure, but all that copying-and-pasting really sucks. I'm sure there's some
    > way of providing the slightly different semantics from the same codebase?

    I will have that patch ready later this week.


    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: 2005-08-31 01:39    [W:0.019 / U:12.620 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site