On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:52:25PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Further while there are a few little nits I think mostly Tejun is 
> > mostly objecting to the fundamental complexity of the problem rather
> > then to things that can be fixed by a cleaner implementation.
> 
> Oh well, I don't think so but I might be wrong.
> 
> > If it didn't take me a week every time I had to update this code
> > after Tejun changes the locking rules in fs/sysfs/dir.c or if there
> > was someone I could delegate the work of maintaining this code to
> > I probably would not mind dropping the patches for a little bit.  As
> > it stands I am having horrible nightmares about how the internals
> > of sysfs will be completely different if you drop the last 3 patches
> > by the time I come back and I will need to spend several more weeks
> > just catching up.
> 
> Yeah, sysfs has gone through a lot of changes but I think most of
> internal restructuring is complete now.  What's left is removing kobj
> completely from sysfs internals and interface.
> 
> We kind of share the pain here although yours seems much worse than
> mine.  Shadow directories have been major pain in the ass while
> restructuring sysfs and I basically had to shoot in the dark because
> there was no in-kernel user.  I guess the blame falls on the timing.
> 
> I'll give a shot at the no intermediate shadowed directory
> implementation.  I think things will fit a lot easier that way but I
> really dunno till I try.  I'll try to post prototype early.
> 
> As long as the current shadow implementation doesn't get into mainline.
>  I'm okay with it staying in Greg's tree until this is resolved.

Don't worry, I will not be sending it on to Linus unless you give the ok
to do so :)

thanks,

greg k-h
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers