Re: [RFC PATCHES] Re: Is configfs the right solution for configuration based fs?

[Ben Nizette <bn@niasdigital.com>]

On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 19:48 -0700, Joel Becker wrote:

> 	Ask, and ye shall receive.  I've actually been meaning to look
> at this for a while.  Please check out the branch configfs-attr-macros
> at my git tree.  Actually, here is the configfs.h with macros, and
> configfs_example_macros.c using them.  Let me know if this fits the
> bill.
> 
> [config-attr-macros:include/linux/configfs.h]
> http://oss.oracle.com/git/jlbec/linux-2.6.git/?p=jlbec/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=include/linux/configfs.h;h=8be4507ab98f49f43c5212cbafe62178df9a517b;hb=c085c60b185d7431935397e43a868325d8f1da6c
> 
> [config-attr-macros:Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs_example_macros.c]
> http://oss.oracle.com/git/jlbec/linux-2.6.git/?p=jlbec/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs_example_macros.c;h=c2ece748abdf30a7d67dd9ea25c5e6ac93fbc005;hb=c085c60b185d7431935397e43a868325d8f1da6c
> 
> 	Compare and contrast with the original configfs_example.c (now
> configfs_example_explicit.c on that branch).  The diff is available
> here:
> http://oss.oracle.com/git/jlbec/linux-2.6.git/?p=jlbec/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=c085c60b185d7431935397e43a868325d8f1da6c
> 

Looks great, thx :-).  I'll convert some of my stuff over to this
interface and see how it flies in the real world.

> > And the trival problem that, ISTR, failing the make_group method always
> > reports -ENOMEM to userspace, no matter what the actual problem was.  I
> > think I had a patch around to pass the error code from make_group back
> > up through to userspace, I wonder what happened to that...
> 
> 	I've also attacked this one.  The change is in the
> make-item-errors branch.  It's already scheduled for linux-next.  Diff
> available here:
> http://oss.oracle.com/git/jlbec/linux-2.6.git/?p=jlbec/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=34fbb494fecfd82bcbf9ed698ef305500228a84c
> 

ISTR when I did this I kept the old semantics and used ERR_PTR and
friends if things went pear-shaped.  Given the small number of in-tree
users needing to be moved over, a more intrusive change for the sake of
a cleaner API like you've done is probably a good thing anyway :-)

Thanks again,
	--Ben.