Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 04:47:21AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Sorry but I don't think the current approach is the correct one. It's >> too painful and too much complexity is scattered all over the place. >> I'm afraid this implementation is going to be a maintenance nightmare. > > In looking over this again, and due to the fact that there are no > in-kernel users of this code, I'm going to drop the other patches in > this series and only keep the first one that removes the current > implementation. > > Eric, is that ok? It gives you time to revisit these changes.
Greg a big part of the reason I don't have internal kernel users is keeping up with changes of sysfs has meant I haven't had time to clean up and submit the patches for the users. With a little luck I will have users by 2.6.24. I am in the process of cleaning up those patches right now. So I can send the off to Dave Miller. So please can we try and at least keep these sysfs patches in a development tree so that people will see them. Further while there are a few little nits I think mostly Tejun is mostly objecting to the fundamental complexity of the problem rather then to things that can be fixed by a cleaner implementation. If it didn't take me a week every time I had to update this code after Tejun changes the locking rules in fs/sysfs/dir.c or if there was someone I could delegate the work of maintaining this code to I probably would not mind dropping the patches for a little bit. As it stands I am having horrible nightmares about how the internals of sysfs will be completely different if you drop the last 3 patches by the time I come back and I will need to spend several more weeks just catching up. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel