lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: unlimited read buffer support on configfs
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 06:10:52PM -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> So, what you are saying is that we should not be using configfs, even
> though it fits nicely except the fact that we are not fitting the "one
> file == one attribute" model ?
>
> In other words, write our own file system instead of expanding the
> existing infrastructure (just to have one additional feature) ?

No, I'm not saying that you shouldn't use configfs. Greg is
more adamant than I, actually, on the "file == attribute" model.
Here's the thing. For most users, there is no reason they can't
use configfs for _config_ and something like netlink for bulk data
movement. configfs isn't a kitchen sink, and it never should be.
Now, I know that your group/pids list fits really nicely as a
concept in the configfs tree. You certainly can't be calling a usermode
helper for each fork() and exit(). So this is why we're still having a
discussion and working on it.

> I think we should be talking these in lkml as it is more on the
> philosophical discusiion than a technical discussion.

Fair enough, Cc'd!

Joel

--

"The question of whether computers can think is just like the question
of whether submarines can swim."
- Edsger W. Dijkstra

Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-10-12 08:57    [W:0.068 / U:0.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site