From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751409AbVH3XaZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:30:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751438AbVH3XaZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:30:25 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:30645 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751409AbVH3XaY (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:30:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:28:46 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Joel Becker Cc: phillips@istop.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, greg@kroah.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs Message-Id: <20050830162846.5f6d0a53.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20050830231307.GE22068@insight.us.oracle.com> References: <200508310854.40482.phillips@istop.com> <20050830231307.GE22068@insight.us.oracle.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Joel Becker wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:54:39AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > But it would be stupid to forbid users from creating directories in sysfs or > > to forbid kernel modules from directly tweaking a configfs namespace. Why > > should the kernel not be able to add objects to a directory a user created? > > It should be up to the module author to decide these things. > > This is precisely why configfs is separate from sysfs. If both > user and kernel can create objects, the lifetime of the object and its > filesystem representation is very complex. Sysfs already has problems > with people getting this wrong. configfs does not. > The fact that sysfs and configfs have similar backing stores > does not make them the same thing. > Sure, but all that copying-and-pasting really sucks. I'm sure there's some way of providing the slightly different semantics from the same codebase?