From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266983AbUBGRV5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Feb 2004 12:21:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266986AbUBGRV5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Feb 2004 12:21:57 -0500 Received: from smtp.everyone.net ([216.200.145.17]:1262 "EHLO rmta04.mta.everyone.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266983AbUBGRVz (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Feb 2004 12:21:55 -0500 Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 12:21:52 -0500 From: "Kevin O'Connor" To: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk Cc: Linus Torvalds , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.3-rc1 Message-ID: <20040207172152.GA6412@arizona.localdomain> References: <20040207025638.GW21151@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040207025638.GW21151@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 02:56:38AM +0000, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk 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@koconnor.net 'IMHO', 'FAQ', 'BTW', etc. !" | ---------------------------------------------------------------------