On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 02:37:42PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
quoted text
> I'm reminded of Rusty's 2003 OLS Keynote, where he points out that
> what's important is not making an interface easy to use, but _hard_
> _to_ _misuse_.  That fact that sysfs is all laid out in a directory,
> but for which some directories/symlinks are OK to use, and some are
> NOT OK to use --- is why I call the sysfs interface "an open pit".
> Sure, if you have the map to the minefield, a minefield is perfectly
> safe when you know what to avoid.  But is that the best way to
> construct a path/interface for an application programmer to get from
> point A to point B?  Maybe, maybe not.

I agree with your criticism of sysfs (indeed, I think I've made many of
them before in somewhat stronger language), but do you have a suggestion
as to an interface that would be harder to misuse?

-- 
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
-
unsubscribe notice
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/