Re: regarding sysfs/kobject separation

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...>
Cc: Greg K-H <greg@...>, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...>, Alan Stern <stern@...>
Date: Monday, September 10, 2007 - 7:51 am

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 22:40:58 +0900,
Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com> wrote:


Excellent. This is so easy to overlook.


Hm. This sounds like two different things:

- Eliminate the need to check after each operation. Might be a matter
of taste; personally, I prefer checking and unwinding on error.

- Atomic creation/deletion of a bunch of sysfs nodes. This sounds
like something really worthwile to have.


Really nice. The need to delete/create symlinks on moving/renaming is
currently a headache inducer.


Makes sense.


Yes, if we can change internal implementation details without upsetting
userspace a lot is gained. As long as the default behaviour remains
easy to implement.
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
regarding sysfs/kobject separation, Tejun Heo, (Sun Sep 2, 9:40 am)
Re: regarding sysfs/kobject separation, Cornelia Huck, (Mon Sep 10, 7:51 am)
Re: regarding sysfs/kobject separation, Greg KH, (Sun Sep 9, 10:59 am)
Re: regarding sysfs/kobject separation, Tejun Heo, (Sun Sep 9, 5:49 pm)
Re: regarding sysfs/kobject separation, Eric W. Biederman, (Sun Sep 2, 9:06 pm)