Hello, Al. On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:23:30AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > I would recommend against that - kernfs is overburdened by their need to > accomodate cgroup weirdness. IMO it's not a good model for anything, other
That's not true. The two big items where sysfs is complicated are the custom revocation implementation and namespace support, both of which come from its sysfs lineage. The revocation implementation had an update to better support cgroup but the new interface is more generic than before and necessary if it wants to support self-removing files along with the said revocation support. One complexity actually added for cgroup is in the mount path because cgroup needs to be able to create or match superblocks dynamically during mount time and that doesn't really jive well with how superblocks are managed in the vfs layer. This part is ugly and intentially left that way. This really should be cgroup specific (and we can't shed it at the moment) and shouldn't be used elsewhere. IIRC, you had some complaints about this and I wonder whether that's what shaped your opinion, but this is entirely isolated. Just use kernfs_mount() and ignore the @new_fs_created param. Overall, kernfs is basically the actual filesystem part of sysfs. None of the fundamentals changed while separating out kernfs out of sysfs. You may not like kernfs but then wouldn't improving it a far better strategy over long haul? I really don't think we need yet another pseudo vfs based filesystem in kernel and unless tracingfs is doing something crazy kernfs should be able to serve as a common foundation. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
