Re: [RFC] fix sysfs symlinks

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 04:24:48PM +0100, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 03:02:32PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > No, we don't want that.  It's ok to have a dangling symlink in the fs if
> > the device the link was pointing to is now gone.  All of the struct
> > class_device stuff relies on the fact that a struct device can go away
> > at any time, and nothing bad will happen (with the exception of a stale
> > symlink.)
> > 
> > Yeah, it can cause a few odd looking trees when you unplug and replug a
> > device a bunch of times, all the while grabbing a reference to the class
> > device, but once everything is released by the user, it is cleaned up
> > properly, with no harm done to anything.
> 
> Except that these "symlinks" are expected to follow the target upon
> renames.

Since when did we ever assume that renaming a kobject would rename the
symlinks that might point to it?  Renaming kobjects are a hack that way,
if you use them, you need to be aware of this limitation.

So I really do not see the need for this change at all.

thanks,

greg k-h