Re: [RFC PATCHES] Re: Is configfs the right solution for configuration based fs?

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Ben Nizette <bn@...>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@...>, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...>, linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...>, linux kernel <linux-kernel@...>, Greg KH <greg@...>, Satyam Sharma <ssatyam@...>, Felix Fietkau <nbd@...>, Al Viro <viro@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>
Date: Friday, June 20, 2008 - 5:37 pm

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 07:22:56PM +1000, Ben Nizette wrote:

	Looks good.  Fits about what I would expect a configfs interface
to look like, with simple show/store stuff.  I can see where some macros
would have shortened some bolierplate.
	Was there any other boilerplate you found cumbersome?  I mean
outside of defining attribute structs and the show/store_attr()
trampoline functions?  Let me know, so I can incorporate it.

Joel

-- 

Life's Little Instruction Book #444

	"Never underestimate the power of a kind word or deed."

Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127
--
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, 5:25 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCHES] Re: Is configfs the right solution for con..., Joel Becker, (Fri Jun 20, 5:37 pm)
Re: Is configfs the right solution for configuration based fs?, Luis R. Rodriguez, (Tue Jun 10, 4:12 am)