From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:59711 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751677AbbHRIda (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:33:30 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRcKl-0004Ns-HQ for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:33:27 +0200 Received: from pro75-5-88-162-203-35.fbx.proxad.net ([88.162.203.35]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:33:27 +0200 Received: from g2p.code by pro75-5-88-162-203-35.fbx.proxad.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:33:27 +0200 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Gabriel de Perthuis Subject: Re: [survey] sysfs layout for btrfs Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 08:33:20 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <55CE7C78.1020509@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 07:40:40 +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > Hello, > > as of now btrfs sysfs does not include the attributes for the volume > manager part in its sysfs layout, so its being developed and there are > two types of layout here below, so I have a quick survey to know which > will be preferred. contenders are: > 1. FS and VM (volume manager) attributes[1] merged sysfs layout > > /sys/fs/btrfs/ <-- holds FS attr, VM attr will be added here. > /sys/fs/btrfs//devices/ <-- btrfs_devices attr here My vote is for the first one. Lengthening the UI/API with /pools/ seems unnecessary, and it's better to get attributes exposed earlier. > 2. FS and VM attributes separated sysfs layout. > > /sys/fs/btrfs/ <--- as is, will continue to hold fs attributes. > /sys/fs/btrfs/pools// <-- will hold VM attributes > /sys/fs/btrfs/pools//devices/ <-- btrfs_devices attr here