Re: Is configfs the right solution for configuration based fs?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Johannes Berg
Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 1:01 am

On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 10:12 +1000, Ben Nizette wrote:

netlink.

s
h
y

Sure can do, but it just adds a lot of complexity to the kernel. I don't
see the point, it's not like you need a lot of code to build netlink
messages. Heck, I've done it by _hand_ and used just netlink sockets.
It's not a lot of code.


I personally prefer to put it into userspace.


I don't remember the specifics, it's been a while, I guess I could be
thinking of the commitable object support; mostly we'd want to configure
many things in one go, even on a live object. Without disabling that
object first, obviously.

johannes
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Is configfs the right solution for configuration based fs?, Luis R. Rodriguez, (Sun Jun 8, 2:25 pm)
Re: Is configfs the right solution for configuration based fs?, Johannes Berg, (Tue Jun 10, 1:01 am)
Re: Is configfs the right solution for configuration based fs?, Luis R. Rodriguez, (Tue Jun 10, 1:12 am)