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 Nov 2010 22:59:20 -0800 From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> Cc: Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>, Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, scst-devel <scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>, Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>, Vu Pham <vuhuong@...lanox.com>, Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>, James Smart <James.Smart@...lex.Com>, Joe Eykholt <jeykholt@...co.com>, Andy Yan <ayan@...vell.com>, Chetan Loke <generationgnu@...oo.com>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Richard Sharpe <realrichardsharpe@...il.com>, Daniel Henrique Debonzi <debonzi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/19]: SCST SYSFS interface implementation On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 03:59:38PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:20:18PM +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote: > > So, I decided to reimplement it to be completely synchronous. SYSFS > > authors did really great job and thanks to the excellent internal SYSFS > > design and implementation it is absolutely safe. See: > > > > [root@tgt ~]# modprobe scst > > [root@tgt ~]# cd /sys/kernel/scst_tgt/ > > Sorry, but no, you can't put this in /sys/kernel/ without getting the > approval of the sysfs maintainer. > > I really don't understand why you are using kobjects in the first place, > why isn't this in the main device tree in the kernel, using 'struct > device'? > It is my understanding that Vlad is able to reflect the topology by manipulating sysfs objects there. > In the end, I guess it really doesn't matter as this code isn't getting > merged so I shouldn't worry about it, right? > This is quite unfortunate as I still have not seen the public comparison of the 2 implementations and the lists of benefits and shortfalls for both of them. -- Dmitry -- 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