Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs

[Daniel Phillips <phillips@istop.com>]

On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:13, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:54:39AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > But it would be stupid to forbid users from creating directories in sysfs
> > or to forbid kernel modules from directly tweaking a configfs namespace. 
> > Why should the kernel not be able to add objects to a directory a user
> > created? It should be up to the module author to decide these things.
>
> 	This is precisely why configfs is separate from sysfs.  If both
> user and kernel can create objects, the lifetime of the object and its
> filesystem representation is very complex.  Sysfs already has problems
> with people getting this wrong.  configfs does not.

Could you please give a specific case?

> 	The fact that sysfs and configfs have similar backing stores
> does not make them the same thing.

It is not just the backing store, it is most of the code, all the structures, 
most of the functionality, a good deal of the bugs...

Regards,

Daniel