Greg KH <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 10:48:42AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> While shadow directories appear to be a good idea, the current scheme
>> of controlling their creation and destruction outside of sysfs appears
>> to be a locking and maintenance nightmare in the face of sysfs directories
>> dynamically coming and going. Which can now occur for directories containing
>> network devices when CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED is not set.
>>
>> This patch removes everything from the initial shadow directory support
>> that allowed the shadow directory creation to be controlled at a higher
>> level. So except for a few bits of sysfs_rename_dir everything from
>> commit b592fcfe7f06c15ec11774b5be7ce0de3aa86e73 is now gone.
>
> Can you rebase patches 2-5 on the latest -mm? Tejun redid the whole
> sysfs internals which pretty much means that this patch series doesn't
> apply anymore :(
Groan...
I expect so. I'm in the middle of figuring out how to make kthread_stop
successfully terminate interruptible sleeps, so I can convert the
last hold outs using kernel_thread to kthread.
Which means it will be a day or two before I can look at this, unless
I get lucky and it happens to be a trivial rebase.
Eric
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
