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: Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@...>
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 - 9:03 pm

On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 14:37 -0700, Joel Becker wrote:

You know, I think you've about covered the boilerplate work.  Apart from
that, well it took me a millisecond to work out what the point of
config_{group,item}s was; I went in kinda expecting to see one struct
for directories and one for attributes.  In fact I still not sure I can
explain the need for config_items separate from config_groups.  Little
help?  :-)

	--Ben.

--
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..., Ben Nizette, (Fri Jun 20, 9:03 pm)
Re: Is configfs the right solution for configuration based fs?, Luis R. Rodriguez, (Tue Jun 10, 4:12 am)