Re: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans

Andrew Morton
2009-01-07T02:17:45Z

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:06:44 +1100 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> On Wednesday 07 January 2009 10:13:44 Andrew Morton wrote:
> > (cc added)
> >
> > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:57:44 -0500
> >
> > Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 12:43:00AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > softirq-introduce-statistics-for-softirq.patch
> > > > proc-export-statistics-for-softirq-to-proc.patch
> > > > proc-update-document-for-proc-softirqs-and-proc-stat.patch
> > >
> > > Why is this in procfs?
> >
> > softirq stuff in /proc seems appropriate? It's alongside
> > /proc/interrupts. We could put it in /trendy-fs-of-the-day, but what
> > would it gain us?
>
> Haven't we kind of agreed to use sysfs for things like this? A few years
> too late to be raising objections now ;)
>
> One problem I have with sysfs is that it (the directory structure, rather
> than the sysfs code itself) really needs to be policed and maintained
> by a central and coherent place/person with taste. Otherwise people put
> their own random crap with their own random naming schemes and becomes
> a crazy mess.
>
> softirqs are not hardware but purely kernel subsystem construct, as such
> they probably go under /sys/kernel/. People unfortunately have already
> added random crap to the /sys/kernel/ root directory, but future additions
> really should go into a good subdirectory structure (putting it into the
> root directory is equivalent to ditching all subdirectories from /proc/sys/).

All sounds like pointless wank^Wbikeshed painting to me.

> /sys/kernel/softirq/*, I suggest.

What would that *improve*?