On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:25, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:13, Joel Becker wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:54:39AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > But it would be stupid to forbid users from creating directories in > > > sysfs or to forbid kernel modules from directly tweaking a configfs > > > namespace. Why should the kernel not be able to add objects to a > > > directory a user created? It should be up to the module author to > > > decide these things. > > > > This is precisely why configfs is separate from sysfs. If both > > user and kernel can create objects, the lifetime of the object and its > > filesystem representation is very complex. Sysfs already has problems > > with people getting this wrong. configfs does not. > > Could you please give a specific case?
More to the point: what makes you think that this apparent ruggedness will diminish after being re-integrated with sysfs? If you wish, you can avoid any dangers by not using sysfs's vfs bypass api. It should be up to the subsystem author. Regards, Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
