From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763578AbXGJJN6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:13:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759532AbXGJJNu (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:13:50 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.180]:50409 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757684AbXGJJNt (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:13:49 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Yd/YSfjrAqCarxBw5PBSRnl4lIDvoMZBIzRQi1iRPtFqbAPpYamnWbOTud93M7UJEvnfSD1rEWvZP6864y/gpSKpdBrA0TDQs5jpJXHHPFTZTW1oiUS5QX+gaF42Ze3j5/oM9UqEjQa6jvI64ShMFo+aciDvUyoXmF6S99MGNRI= Message-ID: <46934DC7.1020104@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:13:43 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070307) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cornelia Huck CC: Alan Stern , Kernel development list Subject: Re: Sysfs and suicidal attributes References: <46931495.4050605@gmail.com> <20070710102857.15a57337@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <46934821.5020409@gmail.com> <20070710110447.0f63baf3@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20070710110447.0f63baf3@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.2.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:49:37 +0900, > Tejun Heo wrote: > >> What I was trying to say was that suicide and murder could be done the >> same way from the driver's POV or am I misunderstanding? > > Do you mean a device unregistering itself from its attribute vs. a > device unregistering another device from its attribute? More like "device unregistering itself from its attribute" vs. "whatever else". >>> A general immediate disconnect of the buffers (which will be handled in >>> a second pass) would be great, but doesn't sound easy. >> I haven't thought too hard about actual implementation but it's pretty >> specific case. If doing things in generic manner is difficult, there >> are plenty of shortcuts to choose from, I think. > > The "second pass" approach where the store method calls the sysfs core > or sets a flag or whatever sounds doable, but I'm not sure how general > we can get. Maybe for all store methods that just trigger an action. Hmm... I'll give it a shot in a few days. -- tejun