On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 03:54:13PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 02:48:10PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Dave Hansen <hansendc@us.ibm.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 19:57 +0200, Benjamin Thery wrote:
> >> >> /sys/class/net/          ("real" net class)
> >> >> /sys/class/net-shadow1/
> >> >> /sys/class/net-shadow2/
> >> >
> >> > This seems like a nice "quick fix", but do we really want to be hacking
> >> > sysfs around like this?
> >> >
> >> > We have the backing sysfs_* entries that are separate from the vfs
> >> > entities already.  Why can't we simply have different /sys vfsmounts
> >> > with different views of the backing sysfs_* entries?
> >> 
> >> So far this has been easier.  sysfs is so tightly coupled to the kobject
> >> tree decoupling them is seriously non-trivial.
> >
> > Tejun just decoupled them, that's why this all changed in the -mm tree,
> > so it might be a whole lot easier to do now.
> 
> Right.  And I was able to simply the code by using more extensively using
> the improved sysfs_dirent.  However we still have kobj->dentry.  Which
> makes a one to many situation tricky.

Ah, yeah, that is still there.  Well, any suggestions you might have for
removing that limitation (if it is one), is appreciated.

thanks,

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