Re: [Scst-devel] [PATCH 8/19]: SCST SYSFS interface implementation

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 09:00:42PM +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> Greg KH, on 11/19/2010 12:46 AM wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:02:58AM +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> >> Since nobody objected, Greg, could you consider to ACK SCST SYSFS
> >> management interface in /sys/kernel/scst_tgt/, please? Please find the
> >> SCST SYSFS ABI documentation file you requested below.
> > 
> > No, sorry, again, you should not be using kobjects, and do not polute
> > the main /sys/kernel/ namespace with this.
> 
> Which other namespace should we "polute" then?

None.  Use 'struct device'

> > Use 'struct device' please, that is what it is there for, and is what
> > the rest of the kernel is using. And use the rest of the
> > driver/bus/device infrastructure as your model will work with it just
> > fine.
> 
> Greg, sorry, I don't understand your requirements and, because of this,
> we can't go ahead implementing them. Could you explain your position,
> please?

I have multiple times.

> None of the SCST objects are Linux devices. None of them has entries in
> /dev, none of them needs to send any events to udev and none of them
> sends or receives data from DMA, hence has any DMA parameters or
> restrictions. So, how can them fit into the driver/bus/device model you
> are enforcing?

That doesn't matter.  They are still "devices" that the kernel knows
about and as such, fit into the device tree of everything in the kernel.

> Sorry, but we have an impression that you are judging without seeing the
> full picture. Isn't it a duty of a subsystem's maintainer to see full
> picture before deciding if it's good or bad?

It's the duty of a subsystem's maintainer to enforce the correct model
of the kernel, and that is what I am doing.

Again, this is the last email I'm writing on this topic, as none of the
previous ones seem to be sinking in.

good luck,

greg k-h