Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> I like it because it shifts complexity from the drivers into driver
>> core. IOW, the driver model is kinder to drivers that way - the driver
>> writer doesn't have to care whether something is suicidal or not - and I
>> think that's the way we should be headed although we're not good at it yet.
>
> It might be that I misunderstand the idea, but doesn't the device
> driver writer need to consider whether the attribute is suicidal as
> well? (If it is the method that needs to call the sysfs core.)
What I was trying to say was that suicide and murder could be done the
same way from the driver's POV or am I misunderstanding?
> A general immediate disconnect of the buffers (which will be handled in
> a second pass) would be great, but doesn't sound easy.
I haven't thought too hard about actual implementation but it's pretty
specific case. If doing things in generic manner is difficult, there
are plenty of shortcuts to choose from, I think.
--
tejun
-
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]
