On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:38:36 -0700 Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That said, given that SRP's been using sysfs since it went in, is there > > a reason to move to configfs other than it's the new preferred way to do > > it? Given the desire to not break ABI's -- and IIRC sysfs was declared to > > be under that unbrella -- wouldn't we have to at least carry both > > interfaces for a while, assuming we can even get rid of the sysfs one? > > Yes, we'd definitely be carrying both interfaces for at least a year. > > Looking further into this, I'm not sure it makes much sense either. > Another problem with configfs is that the lifetime of the object is > controlled by userspace. So if we lose a connection to a target, > the object will persist in configfs until userspace notices. > > - R. There is nothing stopping adding a well designed alternate interface. Either netlink or ioctl's are okay. As long as it is 32/64 bit clean. _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
