Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752134AbWCJAqc (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2006 19:46:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752149AbWCJAqc (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2006 19:46:32 -0500 Received: from mx.pathscale.com ([64.160.42.68]:34191 "EHLO mx.pathscale.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752134AbWCJAqa (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2006 19:46:30 -0500 Subject: Re: Revenge of the sysfs maintainer! (was Re: [PATCH 8 of 20] ipath - sysfs support for core driver) From: "Bryan O'Sullivan" To: Greg KH Cc: Roland Dreier , rolandd@cisco.com, akpm@osdl.org, davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, openib-general@openib.org In-Reply-To: <20060310003513.GA17050@suse.de> References: <1141947143.10693.40.camel@serpentine.pathscale.com> <20060310003513.GA17050@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: PathScale, Inc. Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 16:46:29 -0800 Message-Id: <1141951589.10693.84.camel@serpentine.pathscale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1643 Lines: 42 On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 16:35 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > Grumble? Oh come on, don't export binary structures through sysfs, it's > in the DOCUMENTATION THAT SYSFS IS FOR TEXT FILES ONLY!!!! OK, fine. > If you don't want to export a text file, then use something else other > than sysfs, it's that simple. Use what? Would a sysfs relay file, or whatever they're called now that relayfs is moving into sysfs, do the trick? If so, what's a good place to pull those patches from so I can compile-test my changes? Should I just grub through my archives and apply whatever Paul Mundt sent out a few weeks ago? > sysfs binary files are for PASS-THROUGH things ONLY! If there's any documentation on what sysfs binary files are for, I haven't seen it. It's not in the include files, the source, or Documentation/filesystems. > Ok, here's a new rule to help this from happening again in the future: > > If you want to add a new sysfs file to the kernel, it MUST be > accompanied with full documentation that explains exactly what that > file contains and what it is for. No exceptions will be allowed. I'm fine with this rule, but accompanied how? In a comment in the code? In the patch description? In the same way that sysfs binary files are documented? :-) Also, I'd suggest that you put a similar requirement on directories and symlinks, if you're going to clamp down on files.