Re: sysfs sys/kernel/ namespace (was Re: [PATCH 0/2] add new notifier function ,take2)

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

On Thursday 25 October 2007 15:45, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 12:31:06PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Wednesday 24 October 2007 21:12, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > On 10/24/07, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> > > It was intended to be something like /proc/sys/kernel/ only.
> >
> > Really? So you'd be happy to have a /sys/dev /sys/fs /sys/kernel
> > /sys/net /sys/vm etc? "kernel" to me shouldn't really imply the
> > stuff under the kernel/ source directory or other random stuff
> > that doesn't fit into another directory, but attributes that are
> > directly related to the kernel software (rather than directly
> > associated with any device).
>
> What would you want in /sys/net and /sys/dev and /sys/vm?  I don't mind
> putting subdirs in /sys/kernel/ if you want it.

I guess potentially things that are today in /proc/sys/*. Sysfs is much
closer to the "right" place for this kind of attributes than procfs,
isn't it?


> > It would be nice to get a sysfs content maintainer or two. Just
> > having new additions occasionally reviewed along with the rest of
> > a patch, by random people, doesn't really aid consistency. Would it
> > be much trouble to ask that _all_ additions to sysfs be accompanied
> > by notification to this maintainer, along with a few line description?
> > (then merge would require SOB from said maintainer).
>
> No, I would _love_ that.  We should make the requirement that all new
> sysfs files be documented in Documentation/API/ like that details.

Obviously I'm for that too. A mandatory cc to a linux-abi list,
documentation, and an acked-by from the relevant API maintainers, etc.
All it needs is upstream to agree and sometime to implement it.


> I'll be glad to review it, but as it's pretty trivial to add sysfs
> files, everyone ends up doing it :)

If it fits with the overall direction that yourself / Kay / everyone
else has in mind, then yes. Problem is that if this stuff goes
unreviewed, or reviewed by different people who don't have a coherent
idea of what the API should look like, then it ends in a mess that you
can't fix easily.