From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: [PATCH v3 08/13] QLogic VNIC: sysfs interface implementation for the driver Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:01:03 -0700 Message-ID: <20080605100103.38ce7c4b@extreme> References: <20080529095126.9943.84692.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20080529095754.9943.27936.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20080529103003.010c4a08@extreme> <20080529174805.GA10903@kroah.com> <1212518703.2217.22.camel@lap75545.ornl.gov> <20080605054035.GA8059@ornl.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Amar Mudrankit , Dave Dillow , Greg KH , general@lists.openfabrics.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, poornima.kamath@qlogic.com To: Roland Dreier Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org Errors-To: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:38:36 -0700 Roland Dreier wrote: > > That said, given that SRP's been using sysfs since it went in, is there > > a reason to move to configfs other than it's the new preferred way to do > > it? Given the desire to not break ABI's -- and IIRC sysfs was declared to > > be under that unbrella -- wouldn't we have to at least carry both > > interfaces for a while, assuming we can even get rid of the sysfs one? > > Yes, we'd definitely be carrying both interfaces for at least a year. > > Looking further into this, I'm not sure it makes much sense either. > Another problem with configfs is that the lifetime of the object is > controlled by userspace. So if we lose a connection to a target, > the object will persist in configfs until userspace notices. > > - R. There is nothing stopping adding a well designed alternate interface. Either netlink or ioctl's are okay. As long as it is 32/64 bit clean.