Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266137AbUIEC6P (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Sep 2004 22:58:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266138AbUIEC6P (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Sep 2004 22:58:15 -0400 Received: from peabody.ximian.com ([130.57.169.10]:39131 "EHLO peabody.ximian.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266137AbUIEC6I (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Sep 2004 22:58:08 -0400 Subject: Re: [patch] kernel sysfs events layer From: Robert Love To: Greg KH Cc: akpm@osdl.org, kay.sievers@vrfy.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20040904005433.GA18229@kroah.com> References: <1093988576.4815.43.camel@betsy.boston.ximian.com> <20040831145643.08fdf612.akpm@osdl.org> <1093989513.4815.45.camel@betsy.boston.ximian.com> <20040831150645.4aa8fd27.akpm@osdl.org> <1093989924.4815.56.camel@betsy.boston.ximian.com> <20040902083407.GC3191@kroah.com> <1094142321.2284.12.camel@betsy.boston.ximian.com> <20040904005433.GA18229@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 22:58:08 -0400 Message-Id: <1094353088.2591.19.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 1.5.94.1 (1.5.94.1-1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1769 Lines: 44 On Sat, 2004-09-04 at 02:54 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > So, we're back to the original issue. Why is this kernel event system > different from the hotplug system? I would argue there isn't one, > becides the transport, as you seem to want everything that we currently > provide in the current kobject_hotplug() call. > > But transports are important, I agree. > > How about you just add the ability to send hotplug calls across netlink? > Make it so the kobject_hotplug() function does both the exec() call, and > a netlink call (based on a config option for those people who like to > configure such stuff.) This smells. Look, I agree that unifying the two ideas and transports as much as possible is the right way to proceed. But the fact is, as you said, transports _are_ important. And simply always sending out a hotplug event _and_ a netlink event is silly and superfluous. We need to make up our minds. I don't think anyone argues that netlink makes sense for these low priority asynchronous events. I'd prefer to integrate the two approaches as much as possible, but keep the two transports separate. Use hotplug for hotplug events as we do now and use kevent, which is over netlink, for the new events we want to add. Maybe always do the kevent from the hotplug, but definitely do not do the hotplug from all kevents. It is redundant and extra overhead. Doing both simultaneous begs the question of why have both. Picking the right tool for the job is, well, the right tool for the job. Robert Love - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/