Re: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans

Nick Piggin
2009-01-07T02:07:30Z

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/).

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