Re: [RFD driver-core] Lifetime problems of the current driver model

[Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com>]

--- James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com> wrote:

> I'd favour trying to separate kobject and struct device for this ...
> move all the sysfs stuff into kobject and device only stuff into struct
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Currently the kobject implementation is pure and well-defined.  It is
a good implementation [kobject], and I'd hate to see it lost into being
convoluted with/into another model.

Currently the infrastructure layers are well defined:
   kobject ->  (A layer with objects, their behavor and implementation)
          device ->   (--"--)
                  sysfs.   (--"--)
This isn't that bad of an infrastructure.

It is this well defined layering, i.e. objects, their behavior and
implementation, that allows different (better/worse) infrastructures
to be built on top of it.

It is this well-defined layering which will allow what Tejun wants
to be implemented.

> device ... but that would get us into disentangling the ksets, which, on
> balance, isn't going to be fun ...

     Luben