On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:28:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Joel Becker <[email protected]> wrote: > > The fact that sysfs and configfs have similar backing stores > > does not make them the same thing. > > > > Sure, but all that copying-and-pasting really sucks. I'm sure there's some > way of providing the slightly different semantics from the same codebase? The way that configfs and sysfs create/destroy dentries and their associated inodes is very different from the top, yet similar from the bottom. I suspect that some of it could be libraryized. When I first looked started configfs, I was starting from an "add on to sysfs" perspective, after all. The sysfs maintainers and I agreed, after much discussion, that we should go to a separate tree. Joel -- "Here's a nickle -- get yourself a better X server." - Keith Packard http://www.jlbec.org/ [email protected]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- References:
- [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs
- From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs
- From: Joel Becker <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Only process_die notifier in ia64_do_page_fault if KPROBES is configured.
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Only process_die notifier in ia64_do_page_fault if KPROBES is configured.
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs
- Index(es):
