[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1193411451.2431.13.camel@lov.site>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:10:51 +0200
From: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...il.com>, greg@...ah.com,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Subject: Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 16:48 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I appreciate the sysfs people their opinion that /sys/bdi/ might not be the
> best from their POV, however I'm not seeing where to hook the BDI object from
> so that it all makes sense, a few of the things are currently not exposed in
> sysfs at all, like the NFS and FUSE things.
What happended to the idea to create a "bdi" class, and have the
existing devices as parents, and for stuff that is not (not now, or
never) in sysfs, no parent is set.
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