From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sysfs: Implement sysfs manged shadow directory support. Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 00:26:19 -0700 Message-ID: <20070724072619.GB835@suse.de> References: <20070622001328.GA14113@suse.de> <20070625212339.GA13398@kroah.com> <46A3B449.3090409@gmail.com> <20070722202508.GA18018@suse.de> <46A425F9.1030008@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46A425F9.1030008-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: Linux Containers , Greg KH , Dave Hansen , "Eric W. Biederman" List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:52:25PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Further while there are a few little nits I think mostly Tejun is > > mostly objecting to the fundamental complexity of the problem rather > > then to things that can be fixed by a cleaner implementation. > > Oh well, I don't think so but I might be wrong. > > > If it didn't take me a week every time I had to update this code > > after Tejun changes the locking rules in fs/sysfs/dir.c or if there > > was someone I could delegate the work of maintaining this code to > > I probably would not mind dropping the patches for a little bit. As > > it stands I am having horrible nightmares about how the internals > > of sysfs will be completely different if you drop the last 3 patches > > by the time I come back and I will need to spend several more weeks > > just catching up. > > Yeah, sysfs has gone through a lot of changes but I think most of > internal restructuring is complete now. What's left is removing kobj > completely from sysfs internals and interface. > > We kind of share the pain here although yours seems much worse than > mine. Shadow directories have been major pain in the ass while > restructuring sysfs and I basically had to shoot in the dark because > there was no in-kernel user. I guess the blame falls on the timing. > > I'll give a shot at the no intermediate shadowed directory > implementation. I think things will fit a lot easier that way but I > really dunno till I try. I'll try to post prototype early. > > As long as the current shadow implementation doesn't get into mainline. > I'm okay with it staying in Greg's tree until this is resolved. Don't worry, I will not be sending it on to Linus unless you give the ok to do so :) thanks, greg k-h