Re: Revenge of the sysfs maintainer! (was Re: [PATCH 8 of 20] ipath - sysfs support for core driver)

["Bryan O'Sullivan" <bos@pathscale.com>]

On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 16:35 -0800, Greg KH wrote:

> Grumble?  Oh come on, don't export binary structures through sysfs, it's
> in the DOCUMENTATION THAT SYSFS IS FOR TEXT FILES ONLY!!!!

OK, fine.

> If you don't want to export a text file, then use something else other
> than sysfs, it's that simple.

Use what?  Would a sysfs relay file, or whatever they're called now that
relayfs is moving into sysfs, do the trick?  If so, what's a good place
to pull those patches from so I can compile-test my changes?  Should I
just grub through my archives and apply whatever Paul Mundt sent out a
few weeks ago?

> sysfs binary files are for PASS-THROUGH things ONLY!

If there's any documentation on what sysfs binary files are for, I
haven't seen it.  It's not in the include files, the source, or
Documentation/filesystems.  

> Ok, here's a new rule to help this from happening again in the future:
> 
>   If you want to add a new sysfs file to the kernel, it MUST be
>   accompanied with full documentation that explains exactly what that
>   file contains and what it is for.  No exceptions will be allowed.

I'm fine with this rule, but accompanied how?  In a comment in the code?
In the patch description?  In the same way that sysfs binary files are
documented? :-)

Also, I'd suggest that you put a similar requirement on directories and
symlinks, if you're going to clamp down on files.

	<b