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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 5 Jun 2008 01:40:35 -0400
From:	Dave Dillow <>
To:	Roland Dreier <>
Cc:	Amar Mudrankit <>,
	Greg KH <>,,
	Stephen Hemminger <>,,
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: [PATCH v3 08/13] QLogic VNIC: sysfs interface
	implementation for the driver

On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 09:10:26PM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
>  > Or so the theory goes. Unfortunately, you need all that information
>  > before you can create the connection. The configfs guys have thought
>  > about that, but not implemented yet:
>  > 
>  > > [Committable Items]
>  > > NOTE: Committable items are currently unimplemented.
> The netconsole code in-tree has a separate "enabled" attribute that
> serves the purpose of "committing" something.  Seems good enough for SRP
> to use to me... the rename to commit idea seems cute but I don't see
> that it buys much beyond this.

But... But... I've got nothing.

I mentioned the enable attribute as a possible way to do it, though it is
counter to the configfs's documented preference.  But it's there, it works
perfectly well, and the configfs guys have had over 2 years to implement
their alternate commit feature.

That said, given that SRP's been using sysfs since it went in, is there
a reason to move to configfs other than it's the new preferred way to do
it? Given the desire to not break ABI's -- and IIRC sysfs was declared to
be under that unbrella -- wouldn't we have to at least carry both
interfaces for a while, assuming we can even get rid of the sysfs one?

Carrying both adds a bit of a interesting twist -- targets added using
the sysfs add-target wouldn't show up under configfs. It may not be a
real problem, but it could be a bit of a surprise to an admin.

I'm not opposed to configfs, but the more I think about it, it doesn't
seem to bring much to the table for the SRP initiator other more code
and data structure size.
Dave Dillow
National Center for Computational Science
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(865) 241-6602 office
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists