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: Saturday, June 21, 2008 - 4:03 am

On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 19:02 -0700, Joel Becker wrote:

I guess I don't quite see why all items don't have the ability to have
children.  I mean, a config_item has a config_item_type which contains
the group_ops anyway; I don't quite see why the children, default_groups
and subsys members from config_group don't live inside config_item and
be done with it.

In the kobject/kset case the separation makes sense as kobjects are
embedded in things all over the kernel controlling things like ref
counting, device model glue, hotplug info as well as the sysfs
representation.  The config_item doesn't have any responsibilities
outside of the configfs representation (does it?) so the analogy isn't
100%.  Though of course the item/group split makes sense if there are
grander plans for the config_item in the future.


Right


Indeed, thx.

	--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, (Sat Jun 21, 4:03 am)
Re: Is configfs the right solution for configuration based fs?, Luis R. Rodriguez, (Tue Jun 10, 4:12 am)