On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 15:05 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 15:01 -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> > So is there an argument against moving to reporting things like
> > membership (and maybe arbitrary stats) via sysfs rather than configfs?
>
> Is there a reason to do it, other than keeping configfs simple?
Yes. Can userspace do a mkdir in sysfs? rmdir? My understanding is it
cannot because sysfs directories represent groups of attributes the
represent pre-existing kernel objects. In order to create a directory
we'd likely have to invent some roundabout method for creating these
objects -- perhaps by echo'ing to a file:
echo 'classes/foo/bar/baz' > /sys/ckrm/mkdir
My rough understanding is:
sysfs is for "objects" created by the kernel which userspace may wish to
manipulate.
configfs is for "objects" created by userspace which describe/affect
kernel behavior.
This means the "objects" have different lifetimes (as I think Joel
mentioned) -- sysfs objects can appear and disappear without userspace
interaction whereas configfs objects generally can only appear or
disappear in response to userspace interaction.
Because userspace creates and destroys resource groups configfs seems
the appropriate choice.
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
