Re: [RFC] fix sysfs symlinks

From: Greg KH
Date: Fri Apr 16 2004 - 18:47:26 EST

On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 04:24:48PM +0100, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 03:02:32PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > No, we don't want that. It's ok to have a dangling symlink in the fs if
> > the device the link was pointing to is now gone. All of the struct
> > class_device stuff relies on the fact that a struct device can go away
> > at any time, and nothing bad will happen (with the exception of a stale
> > symlink.)
> >
> > Yeah, it can cause a few odd looking trees when you unplug and replug a
> > device a bunch of times, all the while grabbing a reference to the class
> > device, but once everything is released by the user, it is cleaned up
> > properly, with no harm done to anything.
> Except that these "symlinks" are expected to follow the target upon
> renames.

Since when did we ever assume that renaming a kobject would rename the
symlinks that might point to it? Renaming kobjects are a hack that way,
if you use them, you need to be aware of this limitation.

So I really do not see the need for this change at all.


greg k-h
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at