From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sysfs: Implement sysfs manged shadow directory support. Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:19:42 -0600 Message-ID: References: <1182446577.8138.29.camel@localhost> <20070621211637.GB10583@suse.de> <20070622001328.GA14113@suse.de> <20070625212339.GA13398@kroah.com> <46A3B449.3090409@gmail.com> <20070722202508.GA18018@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070722202508.GA18018-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org> (Greg KH's message of "Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:25:08 -0700") 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: Greg KH Cc: Linux Containers , Greg KH , Tejun Heo , Dave Hansen List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Greg KH writes: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 04:47:21AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Sorry but I don't think the current approach is the correct one. It's >> too painful and too much complexity is scattered all over the place. >> I'm afraid this implementation is going to be a maintenance nightmare. > > In looking over this again, and due to the fact that there are no > in-kernel users of this code, I'm going to drop the other patches in > this series and only keep the first one that removes the current > implementation. > > Eric, is that ok? It gives you time to revisit these changes. Greg a big part of the reason I don't have internal kernel users is keeping up with changes of sysfs has meant I haven't had time to clean up and submit the patches for the users. With a little luck I will have users by 2.6.24. I am in the process of cleaning up those patches right now. So I can send the off to Dave Miller. So please can we try and at least keep these sysfs patches in a development tree so that people will see them. 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. 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. Eric