Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757268AbYFUCEu (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:04:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753010AbYFUCEk (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:04:40 -0400 Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com ([148.87.113.118]:32132 "EHLO rgminet01.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753294AbYFUCEj (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:04:39 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:02:01 -0700 From: Joel Becker To: Ben Nizette Cc: Johannes Berg , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , linux-wireless , linux kernel , Greg KH , Satyam Sharma , Felix Fietkau , Al Viro , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHES] Re: Is configfs the right solution for configuration based fs? Message-ID: <20080621020201.GH21416@mail.oracle.com> Mail-Followup-To: Ben Nizette , Johannes Berg , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , linux-wireless , linux kernel , Greg KH , Satyam Sharma , Felix Fietkau , Al Viro , "H. Peter Anvin" References: <43e72e890806081425h4e785800nc618fc1985f9809f@mail.gmail.com> <1213002187.698.62.camel@johannes.berg> <1213056772.4089.42.camel@moss.renham> <20080619024804.GA29765@mail.oracle.com> <1213942750.2336.43.camel@moss.renham> <20080620065253.GA14238@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <1213953776.2336.75.camel@moss.renham> <20080620213708.GC21416@mail.oracle.com> <1214010229.2336.88.camel@moss.renham> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1214010229.2336.88.camel@moss.renham> X-Burt-Line: Trees are cool. X-Red-Smith: Ninety feet between bases is perhaps as close as man has ever come to perfection. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1381 Lines: 36 On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 11:03:49AM +1000, Ben Nizette wrote: > You know, I think you've about covered the boilerplate work. Apart from > that, well it took me a millisecond to work out what the point of > config_{group,item}s was; I went in kinda expecting to see one struct > for directories and one for attributes. In fact I still not sure I can > explain the need for config_items separate from config_groups. Little > help? :-) Groups can create children, items cannot. Think of kset vs kobject, which is where it came from. Don't worry about directories vs files. The view from the client subsystem isn't about filesystem objects. It's about a hierarchy of items. An item is a sigle entity. It can have attributes. A group is an item that can have children. The fact that you access it via a filesystem is separate. We could have created a system call instead - the callbacks to your client subsystem would have been the same. Does that help? Joel -- Life's Little Instruction Book #511 "Call your mother." Joel Becker Principal Software Developer Oracle E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com Phone: (650) 506-8127 -- 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/