Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934327Ab0KPMAL (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Nov 2010 07:00:11 -0500 Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.72]:55806 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933883Ab0KPMAJ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Nov 2010 07:00:09 -0500 X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 216.231.114.18 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX19Z8KnnG+syh0rnsKDewjHijfOykTb/wu4= From: Richard Williams To: Bart Van Assche CC: Boaz Harrosh , FUJITA Tomonori , Mike Christie , Vladislav Bolkhovitin , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , Greg KH , Dmitry Torokhov , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , James Bottomley , scst-devel , Hannes Reinecke , Andy Yan , Andrew Morton , Vu Pham Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 06:59:33 -0500 Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] [PATCH 8/19]: SCST SYSFS interface implementation Thread-Topic: [Scst-devel] [PATCH 8/19]: SCST SYSFS interface implementation Thread-Index: AcuFhb6dvc8yBiydT9ipAZ8iNZDjLw== Message-ID: <8985DEAF-4227-4629-B90A-938D2BA3534E@etechsoft.com> References: <20101109002829.GA22633@kroah.com> <4CD9A9B8.70708@vlnb.net> <4CDA6CD4.3010308@panasas.com> <4CDAFE6E.7050200@vlnb.net> <4CDBBE80.40908@panasas.com> <4CDC56F9.9040601@vlnb.net> <20101112012315.GE17097@core.coreip.homeip.net> <4CDEC8D2.8080101@vlnb.net> <20101113235938.GA1827@kroah.com> <4CE1017E.4090409@panasas.com> <20101115161620.GB5981@kroah.com> <4CE16B8E.1000300@panasas.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 950 Lines: 17 I'm just an outsider - but maybe my perspective has value - it seems there are two sides to this debate: 1) sysfs is great for scst due to certain stability concerns and code concerns 2) sysfs is bad for scst due to the intended role of sysfs and its namespace Maybe I misunderstand - But if both sides have merit then wouldn't a compromise be appropriate? Maybe the sensical compromise is to use sysfs code to create a new namespace that would fit this purpose? It seems that I am also hearing that the alternatives to sysfs aren't always adequate - so why not use sysfs, but have a place where it's appropriate to use it? Apologies in advance if I'm just way off base here... - Richard Williams-- 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/