On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:23:13PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > The two posted patches are bug fixes for apparent bugs which can be > triggered by the current two users of the interface. AFAICS, locking > there is weird but correct for the current two users. If you can find > any problem there, please lemme know.
How about "what happens after that move-to-NULL if you have a cwd inside the subtree", for starters? > We shouldn't hold this type of > fixes for future clean ups. No, but I'd rather see the rules for callers of sysfs/kobject primitives spelled out - before cleanups or review become even possible. > > As it is, I'm more than inclined > > to propose ripping kobject_move() out, especially since it has only two > > users - something s390-specific and rfcomm, with its shitloads of problems > > beyond just sysfs interaction. > > Can you please elaborate? All sysfs problems discovered by the rfcomm > are fixed by the posted patches. Dave Young has a patch waiting for > verification by the tester. Umm... IIRC, there'd been a lot of fun with tty and procfs sides of that; will check. > Furthermore, even if we rip out > kobject_move() in the future, I don't think -rc7 is the right time to do it. OK... You do have a point, but at this stage I'm not convinced that this thing is safe and usable. I agree that patches do not make things worse, but I suspect that the real problem with kobject_move() is that it's a fundamentally broken interface. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
