On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:54:39AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote: > But it would be stupid to forbid users from creating directories in sysfs or > to forbid kernel modules from directly tweaking a configfs namespace. Why > should the kernel not be able to add objects to a directory a user created? > It should be up to the module author to decide these things. This is precisely why configfs is separate from sysfs. If both user and kernel can create objects, the lifetime of the object and its filesystem representation is very complex. Sysfs already has problems with people getting this wrong. configfs does not. The fact that sysfs and configfs have similar backing stores does not make them the same thing. Joel -- "Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain." - Freidrich von Schiller http://www.jlbec.org/ [email protected]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs
- From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs
- References:
- [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs
- From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
- [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs
- Prev by Date: Re: GDT initialization and location question.
- Next by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs
- Index(es):
