Re: sysfs: tagged directories not merged completely yet

[Eric W. Biederman]

Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Al, thanks a lot for the review, I really appreciate it.

> Eric, I've removed the following patches from my tree so you can rework
> them, if you want to.

Well what Al focused on has very little to do with tagged directories
and mostly do with sysfs itself.  So my current plan is to write
incremental patches that fix sysfs_chmod_file and sysfs_mv_dir,
in the next couple of hours and call it good for the moment.

Unless someone will give an example of how having multiple superblocks
sharing inodes is a problem in practice for sysfs and call it good
for 2.6.28.  Certainly it shouldn't be an issue if the network namespace
code is compiled out.  And it should greatly improve testing of the
network namespace to at least have access to sysfs.

Later Tejun or I or possibly someone else who cares can go back
and simplify the sysfs locking to remove the need for multiple
superblocks sharing inodes, and to address the other big nasties in
the current sysfs implementation.  

Greg I agree with Al that sysfs isn't perfect but we sure aren't going
to fix it if you keep dropping or taking years to merge every patch
from the people working on it, and then dropping those patches because
someone frowns at them.

Eric
--
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/