From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751591Ab0KDQhy (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Nov 2010 12:37:54 -0400 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([147.243.1.47]:36735 "EHLO mgw-sa01.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751064Ab0KDQhw (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Nov 2010 12:37:52 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: device-core: sysfs open close notify From: Onkalo Samu Reply-To: samu.p.onkalo@nokia.com To: ext Greg KH Cc: "hmh@hmh.eng.br" , "alan@linux.intel.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <20101104160321.GB3631@suse.de> References: <1288861417-469-1-git-send-email-samu.p.onkalo@nokia.com> <20101104132339.GC10390@suse.de> <62697B07E9803846BC582181BD6FB6B836EB63CB54@NOK-EUMSG-02.mgdnok.nokia.com> <20101104160321.GB3631@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Organization: Nokia Oyj Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 18:37:36 +0200 Message-ID: <1288888656.2072.5.camel@noppispoppis.nmp.nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nokia-AV: Clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 17:03 +0100, ext Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 02:32:15PM +0100, samu.p.onkalo@nokia.com wrote: > > It is easy to get rid of if the mode parameter is used to pass the information > > that this entry uses open_close_notify. What do you think, is it ok to use > > mode also to that purpose? > > Don't try to overload a parameter that has been used for the past 40+ > years in one way, to try to add additional side-band data that has > nothing to do with it. > > That way lies madness. > And that is why I didn't even tried to do that in the first place - even if it would have been the simple way. Is the implementation ok otherwise? I'll add sysfs_create_file_notify which sets the control bit save way. I think it is enough if these entries can be done attribute by attribute. It is still possible delete them using normal sysfs operations. Thanks for the comments, Samu