Re: /sys/block vs. /sys/class/block

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 03:34:49PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:07:50 +0100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Because /sys/block happened before /sys/class did.  Al Viro converted
> > > the block layer before I got the struct class stuff working properly
> > > during 2.5.
> > > 
> > > And yes, I would like to convert the block layer to use the class stuff,
> > > but for right now, I can't as class devices don't allow
> > > sub-classes-devices, and getting to that work is _way_ down on my list
> > > of things to do.
> > 
> > but can't we at least artificially move it down to /sys/class anyway for
> > the sake of a sane userland API ?
> 
> Can I then make the obvious suggestion: add a symlink in /sys/class
> linking to /sys/block and then reverse the symink once the above work has
> been done and /sys/class/block has been created?
> 
> Or is that too gross? :-)

It is gross.

But I guess I should ask, who really cares about this, so late in the
sysfs structure game?  Is /sys/block/ really a big problem for anyone?
And if it is, I'd much rather someone make the required driver core
changes to fix this up properly, than just put a symlink to paper over
some userspace issue.

And as Dan said, libsysfs already handles /sys/block just like any other
class structure, so a "sane" userland API already exists that fixes this
issue for you.

thanks,

greg k-h