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

[Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@vlnb.net>]

Greg KH, on 11/15/2010 07:16 PM wrote:
> Why, I'm not allowed to get frustrated at repeated attempts to get the
> original poster to change their code to something that is acceptable and
> just give up and walk away?
> 
> Why not?

Hmm, frankly, I decided that you agreed with my arguments..

As I wrote, I'm willing to make any changes you requests. I only asked
why this should be done.

I really don't understand why we and other similar in-kernel developers
should treat kobjects in the different way than any other subobjects of
our outer objects and make for them _additional code_ to specially treat
them as life-time center (http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/11/10/421)? You have
not explained it anywhere in any doc I can find.

This is just small "why" question. Greg, don't we have a right to ask
this before go on?

>> This project, even though out-of-tree, is an old and mature project that
>> has many users. These are all *Linux* users. The authors and community
>> have come to us for help, and advice on making this code acceptable for
>> mainline and hardening the code the way, only one project on the planet
>> can do, the Linux community. I think it is our courtesy and obligation
>> to the Linux users of this Project to comment where they are doing wrong
>> and where they should do better.
> 
> It is also the job of the kernel community to say "No, what you are
> doing is wrong, please don't do that."
> 
> And that's what I'm doing here.
> 
>> It is not of their choice to be out-of-tree. It is ours. The least we can
>> do. Is give then some assistance if we can, and have 5 minutes of our time.
> 
> I have given _way_ more than 5 minutes of my time already.

We appreciated it very much.

>> All these issues we were discussing are interesting and are real Kernel
>> problems. For instance the last comment you made was that for such a dynamic
>> system and life time problems, and functionality. A better and expected
>> solution might be the device tree and not sysfs.
> 
> Yes, that is what I have been saying for a while now.
> 
> Again:
> 	This code is using kobjects incorrectly.
> 	This code should not be using kobjects.
> 
> this is my last response to this thread now, and I'm sure you can
> understand why.

It is REALLY frustrating you are refusing to explain why. I guess, I'm
too stupid to figure out that alone. Don't you want we rise as highly
skilled kernel developers? I believe, not only SCST developers are very
interested to know background behind particular moves in the kernel.

Thanks,
Vlad