Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 13:21 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On 10/2/07, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 12:31 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >
> > > What would be the point in another top-level tree for device
> > > information? All devices you are exporting information for, are
> > > already in the sysfs tree, right?
> >
> > Never did find NFS mounts/servers/superblocks or whatever constitutes a
> > BDI for NFS in there. Same goes for all other networked filesystems for
> > that matter.
> 
> How about adding this information to the tree then, instead of
> creating a new top-level hack, just because something that you think
> you need doesn't exist.

So you suggest adding all the various network filesystems in there
(where?), and adding the concept of a BDI, and ensuring all are properly
linked together - somehow. Feel free to do so.

> You called sysfs a mess, seems you work on that topic too. :)

I called the in-kernel API to create sysfs files a mess. Not that I have
another opinion on the content of /sys though, always takes to damn long
to find anything in there.