Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:54:17 -0700 | From | Joel Becker <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |