Re: configfs: return value for drop_item()/make_item()?

On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 02:49:59PM +0100, Michael Noisternig wrote: > Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that it's not possible to let the user > create the parent directory via mkdir(2) within sysfs. I.e. > # mkdir object <-- create object/, configfs only > # ls object > type > # echo b >

Re: configfs: return value for drop_item()/make_item()?

If you argue that they are in fact created by the user because they are a direct result of a user action, then I can apply the same argument to this one example: ... This is precisely what configfs is designed to forbid. The kernel does not, ever, create configfs objects on its own. It does it

Re: configfs: return value for drop_item()/make_item()?

On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 02:49:59PM +0100, Michael Noisternig wrote: Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that it's not possible to let the user create the parent directory via mkdir(2) within sysfs. I.e. # mkdir object -- create object/, configfs only # ls object type # echo b object/type --

Re: configfs: return value for drop_item()/make_item()?

If you argue that they are in fact created by the user because they are a direct result of a user action, then I can apply the same argument to this one example: ... This is precisely what configfs is designed to forbid. The kernel does not, ever, create configfs objects on its own. It does it

Re: configfs: return value for drop_item()/make_item()?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 01:35:36PM +0100, Michael Noisternig wrote: > Sure, but what I meant to say was that the user, when creating a > directory, did not request creation of such sub-directories, so I see > them as created by the kernel. Ahh, but userspace did! It's part of the

Re: configfs: return value for drop_item()/make_item()?

Thanks for your reply again! See comments inline... Joel Becker wrote: I fully agree with the idea of configfs not being allowed to destroy user-created objects. OTOH, while configfs is described as a filesystem for user-created objects under user control, compared to sysfs as a filesystem for

Re: configfs: return value for drop_item()/make_item()?

Thanks for your reply again! See comments inline... Joel Becker wrote: I fully agree with the idea of configfs not being allowed to destroy user-created objects. OTOH, while configfs is described as a filesystem for user-created objects under user control, compared to sysfs as a filesystem for

Re: configfs: return value for drop_item()/make_item()?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 01:35:36PM +0100, Michael Noisternig wrote: Sure, but what I meant to say was that the user, when creating a directory, did not request creation of such sub-directories, so I see them as created by the kernel. Ahh, but userspace did! It's part of the configfs

Re: configfs: return value for drop_item()/make_item()?

ferred). > And sorry for your double-reception of my last mail, I was unwittingly > ignoring your follow-up-to setting. I filter dupes by Message-ID :-) > Original Message > Subject: Re: configfs: return value for drop_item()/make_item()? > From: Michael Noistern

Re: configfs: return value for drop_item()/make_item()?

). And sorry for your double-reception of my last mail, I was unwittingly ignoring your follow-up-to setting. I filter dupes by Message-ID :-) Original Message Subject: Re: configfs: return value for drop_item()/make_item()? From: Michael Noisternig Date: Tue Jan 16 2007 - 11

Re: configfs: return value for drop_item()/make_item()?

I'm sorry if I missed your previous post. I've never ignored a configfs post on purpose :-) Well, thanks a lot for the reply! :) Here's the issue... the configfs system can prevent a user from _creating_ sub-directories in a certain directory (by not supplying struct

Re: configfs: return value for drop_item()/make_item()?

On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 11:55:20AM +0100, Michael Noisternig wrote: > I've posted this before but without getting any replies. Please, > somebody either give a (short) reply to this or simply explain why they > think this is OT or not worth answering... I'm sorry if I missed your

Re: configfs: return value for drop_item()/make_item()?

On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 11:55:20AM +0100, Michael Noisternig wrote: I've posted this before but without getting any replies. Please, somebody either give a (short) reply to this or simply explain why they think this is OT or not worth answering... I'm sorry if I missed your previous

Re: configfs: return value for drop_item()/make_item()?

I'm sorry if I missed your previous post. I've never ignored a configfs post on purpose :-) Well, thanks a lot for the reply! :) Here's the issue... the configfs system can prevent a user from _creating_ sub-directories in a certain directory (by not supplying struct

configfs: return value for drop_item()/make_item()?

Hi again, I've posted this before but without getting any replies. Please, somebody either give a (short) reply to this or simply explain why they think this is OT or not worth answering... Here's the issue... the configfs system can prevent a user from _creating_ sub-directories in a

configfs: return value for drop_item()/make_item()?

Hi again, I've posted this before but without getting any replies. Please, somebody either give a (short) reply to this or simply explain why they think this is OT or not worth answering... Here's the issue... the configfs system can prevent a user from _creating_ sub-directories in a