From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932287AbVH3Xfb (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:35:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751450AbVH3Xfb (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:35:31 -0400 Received: from smtp.istop.com ([66.11.167.126]:47302 "EHLO smtp.istop.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751440AbVH3Xfb (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:35:31 -0400 From: Daniel Phillips To: Joel Becker Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:35:29 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Greg KH References: <200508310854.40482.phillips@istop.com> <20050830231307.GE22068@insight.us.oracle.com> <200508310925.22567.phillips@istop.com> In-Reply-To: <200508310925.22567.phillips@istop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200508310935.29452.phillips@istop.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:25, Daniel Phillips wrote: > 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? More to the point: what makes you think that this apparent ruggedness will diminish after being re-integrated with sysfs? If you wish, you can avoid any dangers by not using sysfs's vfs bypass api. It should be up to the subsystem author. Regards, Daniel