| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 01:02:41 +0100 From: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org> To: Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@...eus.cx> Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: No more "device" symlinks for classes On Sun, 2007-01-14 at 00:51 +0100, Pierre Ossman wrote: > I just wanted to know the rationale behind > 99ef3ef8d5f2f5b5312627127ad63df27c0d0d05 (no more "device" symlink in > class devices). I thought that was a rather convenient way of finding > which physical device the class device was coupled to. The plan is to have a single unified tree at /sys/devices, where all device-directories live below their parents, and /sys/class contains only symlinks pointing into this single tree, just like /sys/bus. People want to stack class-devices, but this leads to a /sys/devices tree and several small trees spread around in /sys/class. These trees need to be connected by "device"-links and the "class:"-links, which just doesn't make much sense if you can have one single tree with the same information. In the unified tree, the "device"-link will always just point to the parent device, that's why there is a config option to disable these links and test current software not to depend on it. There was a long discussion on lkml about all that, maybe a year ago, while converting "input". Thanks, Kay - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists