Re: /sys/block vs. /sys/class/block

[Daniel Stekloff <dsteklof@us.ibm.com>]

On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 23:07, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 14:49 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 08:08:52AM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Because /sys/block happened before /sys/class did.  Al Viro converted
> > the block layer before I got the struct class stuff working properly
> > during 2.5.
> > 
> > And yes, I would like to convert the block layer to use the class stuff,
> > but for right now, I can't as class devices don't allow
> > sub-classes-devices, and getting to that work is _way_ down on my list
> > of things to do.
> 
> but can't we at least artificially move it down to /sys/class anyway for
> the sake of a sane userland API ?


Just as a note, libsysfs treats /sys/block as a class, as if under
/sys/class. We felt that's where it belonged and that's where it will
end up.... eventually.

Thanks,

Dan