Hi Andrew,
Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote on 04/29/2006 10:14:23 AM:
[snip]
> > > Also, "/sys/hypervisor" is probably insufficiently specific. In a
few
> > > years time people will be asking "Which hypervisor? We have
> eighteen of them!".
> >
> > I agree, the xen people are already clammering for some kind of sysfs
> > tree and wanted to create /sys/hypervisor/xen. How about
> > /sys/hypervisor/s390?
Fine with me! Then I will create /sys/hypervisor/s390. Should I
create /sys/hypervisor in the hpyfs code or should it be
created somewhere else?
> Yes, something like that. Even "hypfs" is possibly too generic.
What about s390-hypfs?
Michael
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:48:19AM +0200, Michael Holzheu wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote on 04/29/2006 10:14:23 AM:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > Also, "/sys/hypervisor" is probably insufficiently specific. In a
> few
> > > > years time people will be asking "Which hypervisor? We have
> > eighteen of them!".
> > >
> > > I agree, the xen people are already clammering for some kind of sysfs
> > > tree and wanted to create /sys/hypervisor/xen. How about
> > > /sys/hypervisor/s390?
>
> Fine with me! Then I will create /sys/hypervisor/s390. Should I
> create /sys/hypervisor in the hpyfs code or should it be
> created somewhere else?
Somewhere else is probably best.
drivers/base/hypervisor.c ?
thanks,
greg k-h
Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote on 05/04/2006 12:10:37 AM:
> > Fine with me! Then I will create /sys/hypervisor/s390. Should I
> > create /sys/hypervisor in the hpyfs code or should it be
> > created somewhere else?
>
> Somewhere else is probably best.
>
> drivers/base/hypervisor.c ?
>
We could do that, but then we have to create two new files
hypervisor.c and hypervisor.h just for one new mountpoint
in sysfs.
I would suggest do do it like /sys/kernel and put the code
into kernel/ksysfs.c and include/linux/kobject.h
Michael
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:22:42PM +0200, Michael Holzheu wrote:
> Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote on 05/04/2006 12:10:37 AM:
>
> > > Fine with me! Then I will create /sys/hypervisor/s390. Should I
> > > create /sys/hypervisor in the hpyfs code or should it be
> > > created somewhere else?
> >
> > Somewhere else is probably best.
> >
> > drivers/base/hypervisor.c ?
> >
>
> We could do that, but then we have to create two new files
> hypervisor.c and hypervisor.h just for one new mountpoint
> in sysfs.
>
> I would suggest do do it like /sys/kernel and put the code
> into kernel/ksysfs.c and include/linux/kobject.h
No, if you do that then every kernel gets that mount point, when almost
no one really wants it :)
If you leave it as a separate file, then the build system can just
include the file as needed.
thanks,
greg k-h
Hi Greg,
Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote on 05/04/2006 04:42:59 PM:
> > I would suggest do do it like /sys/kernel and put the code
> > into kernel/ksysfs.c and include/linux/kobject.h
>
> No, if you do that then every kernel gets that mount point, when almost
> no one really wants it :)
>
> If you leave it as a separate file, then the build system can just
> include the file as needed.
>
So you want a new config option CONFIG_HYPERVISOR?
When no one except for us wants it, wouldn't it be best
then to create /sys/hypervisor first in the hypfs code?
If someone else needs it in the future, we still can move
it common code.
Michael
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 05:01:07PM +0200, Michael Holzheu wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote on 05/04/2006 04:42:59 PM:
> > > I would suggest do do it like /sys/kernel and put the code
> > > into kernel/ksysfs.c and include/linux/kobject.h
> >
> > No, if you do that then every kernel gets that mount point, when almost
> > no one really wants it :)
> >
> > If you leave it as a separate file, then the build system can just
> > include the file as needed.
> >
>
> So you want a new config option CONFIG_HYPERVISOR?
Sure. But don't make it a user selectable config option, but rather,
one your S390 option sets.
That way the Xen and other groups can also set it when they need it.
> When no one except for us wants it, wouldn't it be best
> then to create /sys/hypervisor first in the hypfs code?
>
> If someone else needs it in the future, we still can move
> it common code.
The Xen people need it too. Now who knows when their code will ever hit
mainline...
thanks,
greg k-h