[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <824244.95510.qm@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@...oo.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>,
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc: gregkh@...e.de, hugh@...itas.com, cornelia.huck@...ibm.com,
dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, oneukum@...e.de, maneesh@...ibm.com,
rpurdie@...ys.net, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
SCSI Mailing List <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD driver-core] Lifetime problems of the current driver model
--- James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com> wrote:
> I'd favour trying to separate kobject and struct device for this ...
> move all the sysfs stuff into kobject and device only stuff into struct
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Currently the kobject implementation is pure and well-defined. It is
a good implementation [kobject], and I'd hate to see it lost into being
convoluted with/into another model.
Currently the infrastructure layers are well defined:
kobject -> (A layer with objects, their behavor and implementation)
device -> (--"--)
sysfs. (--"--)
This isn't that bad of an infrastructure.
It is this well defined layering, i.e. objects, their behavior and
implementation, that allows different (better/worse) infrastructures
to be built on top of it.
It is this well-defined layering which will allow what Tejun wants
to be implemented.
> device ... but that would get us into disentangling the ksets, which, on
> balance, isn't going to be fun ...
Luben
-
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