Re: Linux 2.6.3-rc1

[Kevin O'Connor]

On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 02:56:38AM +0000, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> One note: please, please, let's put a moratorium on sysfs-related patches
> that didn't go through review.  We are just getting netdev situation in
> the main tree under control.  It took nearly half a year (if not more).
[...]
> If you are doing any sysfs integration - *fix* *lifetime* *rules* *first*.

There appears to be a lot of developer activity concentrated on getting
sysfs support in various parts of the kernel, and this inevitably leads to
a reworking of kernel object lifetime rules.  I have to wonder if making
these lifetime changes is really a good idea.

Sysfs appears to be mainly used for exporting various adhoc pieces of
information and occasionally for getting various tuning input.  This
functionality is generally ancillary to the main purpose of the
subsystems/drivers that use sysfs.  It seems backward to me that the
lifetime rules of an object should be dominated by this ancillary
functionality.

So, my question - is it really a good idea to rework much of the kernel
object lifetime rules just to support sysfs?

And a related question - couldn't sysfs be taught to atomically drop its
references to external kernel objects and thus obviate the need for all
these lifetime rule changes?

-Kevin

-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 | Kevin O'Connor                  "BTW, IMHO we need a FAQ for      |
 | kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxx               'IMHO', 'FAQ', 'BTW', etc. !"    |
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/