Hey,
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:44:33PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> I seem to remember some issues here as well, probably with scsi devices,
> that kept us from doing this in this manner. Can you test this on
> removing some scsi devices and see if everything still works properly
> with this patchset
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:03:08PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> I am running from memory right now. But the short version is.
>
> Al Viro has complained about the sysfs removal antics of sysfs, and
> I have seen Al get confused and "fix" filesystems that depart too far
> from normal files
I am running from memory right now. But the short version is.
Al Viro has complained about the sysfs removal antics of sysfs, and
I have seen Al get confused and "fix" filesystems that depart too far
from normal filesystem semantics.
I have gone down this path both ways and "rm -rf" semantics a
Hey, Eric.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 05:48:52AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> There are two very big problems with this direction.
> 1) It violates the principle of least surprise. In particular it messes
>up the mental model of people like Al Viro. Which can easily lead to
>code break
Tejun Heo writes:
> Hello,
>
> Currently, there are multiple variants of internal sysfs removal
> functions and the directory removal behavior is a bit weird in that
> while it does remove the files contained immediately in the directory
> it wouldn't recurse into its subdirectories, even the gro
Hello,
Currently, there are multiple variants of internal sysfs removal
functions and the directory removal behavior is a bit weird in that
while it does remove the files contained immediately in the directory
it wouldn't recurse into its subdirectories, even the group ones which
belong to the sam
6 matches
Mail list logo
