Stephen Hemminger wrote:
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.
From a quick look it seems it should use rtnl_link instead
of adding yet another private sysfs interface.
_______________________________________________
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
