Re: [PATCH 8/19]: SCST SYSFS interface implementation

[Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@vlnb.net>]

Dmitry Torokhov, on 11/15/2010 09:59 AM wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 03:59:38PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:20:18PM +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
>>> So, I decided to reimplement it to be completely synchronous. SYSFS
>>> authors did really great job and thanks to the excellent internal SYSFS
>>> design and implementation it is absolutely safe. See:
>>>
>>> [root@tgt ~]# modprobe scst
>>> [root@tgt ~]# cd /sys/kernel/scst_tgt/
>>
>> Sorry, but no, you can't put this in /sys/kernel/ without getting the
>> approval of the sysfs maintainer.
>>
>> I really don't understand why you are using kobjects in the first place,
>> why isn't this in the main device tree in the kernel, using 'struct
>> device'?
> 
> It is my understanding that Vlad is able to reflect the topology by
> manipulating sysfs objects there.

Correct. As I wrote in the previous e-mail, SCST doesn't deal with
devices, so doesn't have a need to use struct device.

>> In the end, I guess it really doesn't matter as this code isn't getting
>> merged so I shouldn't worry about it, right?
>>
> 
> This is quite unfortunate as I still have not seen the public comparison
> of the 2 implementations and the lists of benefits and shortfalls for
> both of them.

Indeed, it is unfortunate :(. Undercover political games continue...

Vlad