Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs
From: Andrew Morton (akpm_at_osdl.org)
Date: 08/31/05
- Previous message: Daniel Phillips: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 4 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs"
- In reply to: Joel Becker: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs"
- Next in thread: viro_at_ZenIV.linux.org.uk: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs"
- Reply: viro_at_ZenIV.linux.org.uk: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs"
- Reply: Daniel Phillips: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs"
- Reply: Joel Becker: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:28:46 -0700 To: Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com>
Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com> 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?
-
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/
- Previous message: Daniel Phillips: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 4 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs"
- In reply to: Joel Becker: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs"
- Next in thread: viro_at_ZenIV.linux.org.uk: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs"
- Reply: viro_at_ZenIV.linux.org.uk: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs"
- Reply: Daniel Phillips: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs"
- Reply: Joel Becker: "Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|