[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080605100103.38ce7c4b@extreme>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:01:03 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
Cc: Dave Dillow <dillowda@...l.gov>,
Amar Mudrankit <amar.mudrankit@...gic.com>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
general@...ts.openfabrics.org, poornima.kamath@...gic.com
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: [PATCH v3 08/13] QLogic VNIC: sysfs interface
implementation for the driver
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:38:36 -0700
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Yes, we'd definitely be carrying both interfaces for at least a year.
>
> Looking further into this, I'm not sure it makes much sense either.
> Another problem with configfs is that the lifetime of the object is
> controlled by userspace. So if we lose a connection to a target,
> the object will persist in configfs until userspace notices.
>
> - R.
There is nothing stopping adding a well designed alternate interface.
Either netlink or ioctl's are okay. As long as it is 32/64 bit clean.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists