From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261175AbULTID1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:03:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261206AbULTICH (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:02:07 -0500 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:9891 "EHLO gate.crashing.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261491AbULTHJK (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Dec 2004 02:09:10 -0500 Subject: /sys/block vs. /sys/class/block From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Linux Kernel list Cc: Patrick Mochel , Jens Axboe Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 08:08:52 +0100 Message-Id: <1103526532.5320.33.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I'm trying to understand why we have /sys/block instead of /sys/class/block, and so far, I haven't found a single good argument justifying it... It just messes up the so far logical layout of sysfs for no apparent reason. I also didn't find where /sys/block is created, but that's maybe because I didn't search too hard :) So I'm not coming up with a patch yet, but unless somebody can convince me it should stay here, I'll do so soon. If the reason not to fix it is backward compatibility, then that would really be a shame we managed already to turn the brand new sysfs into a mess with no hope of fixing it... If there is really a problem there, maybe we could move it and keep a compat symlink for a few kernel revs... ? Ben.