Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266199AbUIED7m (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Sep 2004 23:59:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266186AbUIED7m (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Sep 2004 23:59:42 -0400 Received: from peabody.ximian.com ([130.57.169.10]:46555 "EHLO peabody.ximian.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266199AbUIED72 (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Sep 2004 23:59:28 -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 23:59:24 -0400 Message-Id: <1094356764.2591.31.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: 1569 Lines: 42 On Sat, 2004-09-04 at 02:54 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > But transports are important, I agree. Oh, I have another thought (see my previous email first). The proper course of action based on your suggestion is to cleanly abstract the concept of the "backend transport" from the notifier, and offer a compile-time option of hotplug, netlink, and/or whatever else. Make the transport pluggable and configurable. Do it cleanly. Yada yada. But that is a lot of code and a lot of work. More than I think is warranted, right? Accepting that the above is the clean and proper way to do what you say, let's carry it through. What is the ideal situation? People pick either hotplug or netlink or foo as their transport. Why pick more than one? Most people select hotplug because that is there now and works. Maybe in the future people would choose netlink and move to that. This is all ideally. In practice, however, we get people enabling both hotplug and netlink, because they need hotplug for hotplug and want netlink for the new kevent stuff. So this approach leads to no one ever picking the ideal. What we want is people using hotplug for hotplug, and kevent over netlink for the event stuff. So why stick the two together? We have kobject_hotplug() and kobject_notify() and everything makes sense. 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/