Re: unlimited read buffer support on configfs

[Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com>]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 06:10:52PM -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> So, what you are saying is that we should not be using configfs, even
> though it fits nicely except the fact that we are not fitting the "one
> file == one attribute" model ?
> 
> In other words, write our own file system instead of expanding the
> existing infrastructure (just to have one additional feature) ?

	No, I'm not saying that you shouldn't use configfs.  Greg is
more adamant than I, actually, on the "file == attribute" model.
	Here's the thing.  For most users, there is no reason they can't
use configfs for _config_ and something like netlink for bulk data
movement.  configfs isn't a kitchen sink, and it never should be.
	Now, I know that your group/pids list fits really nicely as a
concept in the configfs tree.  You certainly can't be calling a usermode
helper for each fork() and exit().  So this is why we're still having a
discussion and working on it.

> I think we should be talking these in lkml as it is more on the
> philosophical discusiion than a technical discussion. 

	Fair enough, Cc'd!

Joel

-- 

"The question of whether computers can think is just like the question
 of whether submarines can swim."
	- Edsger W. Dijkstra

Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127