Re: sysfs sys/kernel/ namespace (was Re: [PATCH 0/2] add new notifier function ,take2)

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

On Wednesday 24 October 2007 21:12, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On 10/24/07, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 October 2007 10:55, Takenori Nagano wrote:
> > > Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > One thing I'd suggest is not to use debugfs, if it is going to
> > > > be a useful end-user feature.
> > >
> > > Is /sys/kernel/notifier_name/ an appropriate place?
> >
> > I'm curious about the /sys/kernel/ namespace. I had presumed that
> > it is intended to replace /proc/sys/ basically with the same
> > functionality.
>
> It was intended to be something like /proc/sys/kernel/ only.

Really? So you'd be happy to have a /sys/dev /sys/fs /sys/kernel
/sys/net /sys/vm etc? "kernel" to me shouldn't really imply the
stuff under the kernel/ source directory or other random stuff
that doesn't fit into another directory, but attributes that are
directly related to the kernel software (rather than directly
associated with any device).


> > I _assume_ these are system software stats and
> > tunables that are not exactly linked to device drivers (OTOH,
> > where do you draw the line? eg. Would filesystems go here?
>
> We already have /sys/fs/ ?
>
> > Core network algorithm tunables might, but per interface ones probably
> > not...).
>
> We will merge the nonsense of "block/", "class/" and "bus/" to one
> "subsystem". The block, class, bus directories will only be kept as
> symlinks for compatibility. Then every subsystem has a directory like:
> /sys/subsystem/block/, /sys/subsystem/net/ and the devices of the
> subsystem are in a devices/ directory below that. Just like the
> /sys/bus/< name>/devices/ layout looks today. All subsystem-global
> tunables can go below the /sys/subsystem/<name>/ directory, without
> clashing with the list of devices or anything else.

Makes sense.


> > I don't know. Is there guidelines for sysfs (and procfs for that
> > matter)? Is anyone maintaining it (not the infrastructure, but
> > the actual content)?
>
> Unfortunately, there was never really a guideline.
>
> > It's kind of ironic that /proc/sys/ looks like one of the best
> > organised directories in proc, while /sys/kernel seems to be in
> > danger of becoming a mess: it has kexec and uevent files in the
> > base directory, rather than in subdirectories...
>
> True, just looking at it now, people do crazy things like:
> /sys/kernel/notes, which is a file with binary content, and a name
> nobody will ever be able to guess what it is good for. That should
> definitely go into a section/ directory.  Also the VM stuff there
> should probably move to a /sys/vm/ directory along with the weird
> placed top-level /sys/slab/.

Top level directory IMO should be kept as sparse as possible. If
you agree to /sys/mm for example, that's fine, but then slab should
go under that. (I'd prefer all to go underneath /sys/kernel, but...).

It would be nice to get a sysfs content maintainer or two. Just
having new additions occasionally reviewed along with the rest of
a patch, by random people, doesn't really aid consistency. Would it
be much trouble to ask that _all_ additions to sysfs be accompanied
by notification to this maintainer, along with a few line description?
(then merge would require SOB from said maintainer).

For that matter, this should be the case for *all* userspace API
changes (kernel-user-api@vger.kernel.org?)