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

[Daniel Phillips <phillips@istop.com>]

On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:28, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com> 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.
> > 	The fact that sysfs and configfs have similar backing stores
> > does not make them the same thing.
>
> Sure, but all that copying-and-pasting really sucks.  I'm sure there's some
> way of providing the slightly different semantics from the same codebase?

I will have that patch ready later this week.

Regards,

Daniel