On Saturday 20 August 2005 13:01, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 10:50:51AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > So: Integrate with sysfs.
>
> No, don't. Do you think that Joel would not have already worked with
> the sysfs people prior to submitting this? No, he did, and we all
> agreed that it should be kept separate.
Would you care to recap the reasoning, please?
> > Terminology skew. It is a very bad idea to call your configfs files
> > "attributes".
>
> That's what sysfs calls its files. They used the same naming scheme
> there. This is nothing that a user ever cares about or sees.
It's wrrrrronnnggg. The best you can defend this with is "it's entrenched".
> > Memory requirements. ConfigFS pins way too much kernel memory for inodes
> > and dentries.
>
> configfs is not going to have that many nodes at all in memory (compared
> to sysfs), so I don't think this is a big problem.
The current bloat is unconscionable, for the amount of data that is carried.
Are you arguing against fixing it? And what makes you think configfs will
never have lots of nodes?
Regards,
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |