Messages in this thread | | | From | Richard Williams <> | Date | Tue, 16 Nov 2010 06:59:33 -0500 | Subject | Re: [Scst-devel] [PATCH 8/19]: SCST SYSFS interface implementation |
| |
I'm just an outsider - but maybe my perspective has value - it seems there are two sides to this debate:
1) sysfs is great for scst due to certain stability concerns and code concerns 2) sysfs is bad for scst due to the intended role of sysfs and its namespace
Maybe I misunderstand - But if both sides have merit then wouldn't a compromise be appropriate?
Maybe the sensical compromise is to use sysfs code to create a new namespace that would fit this purpose? It seems that I am also hearing that the alternatives to sysfs aren't always adequate - so why not use sysfs, but have a place where it's appropriate to use it?
Apologies in advance if I'm just way off base here...
- Richard Williams
| |