On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 22:04 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > This crashes and burns on bootup, but I'm too tired to figure out what I > did wrong... will give it another try tomorrow.. Ok, can't sleep.. took a look. I have several problems here. The thing that makes it go *boom* is the __ATTR_NULL. Removing that makes it boot. Albeit it then warns me of multiple duplicate sysfs objects, all named "bdi". For some obscure reason this device interface insists on using the bus_id as name (?!), and further reduces usability by limiting that to 20 odd characters. This makes it quite useless. I tried fudging around that limit by using device_rename and kobject_rename, but to no avail. Really, it should not be this hard to use, trying to expose a handfull of simple integers to userspace should not take 8h+ and still not work. Peter, who thinks sysfs is contorted mess beyond his skill. I'll stick to VM and scheduler code, that actually makes sense. - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- -mm merge plans for 2.6.24
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: "Kay Sievers" <[email protected]>
- Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Kay Sievers <[email protected]>
- Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Kay Sievers <[email protected]>
- Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Kay Sievers <[email protected]>
- Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Kay Sievers <[email protected]>
- Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Kay Sievers <[email protected]>
- Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- -mm merge plans for 2.6.24
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86: unify crash_32/64.c
- Next by Date: Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- Previous by thread: Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- Next by thread: Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- Index(es):