Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:48:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:48:42 -0400 Received: from air-2.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:8093 "EHLO geena.pdx.osdl.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:48:38 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:45:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Patrick Mochel X-X-Sender: To: Nick Bellinger cc: Subject: Re: [PATCH] /proc/scsi/map In-Reply-To: <1025134761.15055.84.camel@subjeKt> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1077 Lines: 24 > > That's why I think a "non-physical" tree (not under $DRIVERFS/root) is more > > sensible in such cases. Which is not to say it's without additional issues > > (like how to establish/maintain driver linkages that are DAGs not single > > parent trees) but it wouldn't require drivers to dig as deeply into lower > > levels of their stack. (And some network interfaces might well live in > > such a non-physical tree, not just iSCSI...) > > > > I am in complete agreement, from my little view of where driverfs > currently stands a non-physical tree is going to have to happen sooner > or later, why not now? No. The physical hierarchy in driverfs is meant to be as accurate as possible. Yes, it's idealistic, and at some point we might have to make a bit of an exception. But, I refuse to break that model yet. -pat - 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/