From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luben Tuikov Subject: Re: [RFD driver-core] Lifetime problems of the current driver model Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:33:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <824244.95510.qm@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1175278774.3760.44.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Reply-To: ltuikov@yahoo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1175278774.3760.44.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley , Tejun Heo Cc: gregkh@suse.de, hugh@veritas.com, cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, oneukum@suse.de, maneesh@in.ibm.com, rpurdie@rpsys.net, Jeff Garzik , lkml , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" , SCSI Mailing List List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org --- James Bottomley 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