[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070711143603.1f474b39@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:36:03 +0200
From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Sysfs and suicidal attributes
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:04:44 +0900,
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> wrote:
> Thanks for enlightening me. Probably what can be done is blocking
> regular file sysfs nodes automatically and make it optional (optionally
> enable or disable) for bin attrs.
Perhaps all files should block by default, but have a knob to disable
blocking for special cases (or an attribute flag like ATTR_NOFREEZE?)
> >>> Using a freezable workqueue for the callbacks would also localize the
> >>> suspend handling.
> >> But the freezable workqueue thing isn't really necessary if any of the
> >> discussed solutions is implemented, right?
> >
> > It isn't necessary if the callbacks aren't needed (i.e., if we give
> > methods a way to unregister their attribute directly). But if we do
> > keep the callbacks, then for safety's sake their workqueue should be
> > freezable.
I agree.
> I see. Let's see how the direct suicide thing works out.
If it can be done nicely, I'd prefer it over the workqueue solution -
but not if we end up with hard-to-understand code.
-
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