[ofa-general] Re: [PATCH v3 08/13] QLogic VNIC: sysfs interface implementation for the driver
Patrick McHardy
kaber at trash.net
Thu Jun 5 10:32:59 PDT 2008
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:38:36 -0700
> Roland Dreier <rdreier at cisco.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.
From a quick look it seems it should use rtnl_link instead
of adding yet another private sysfs interface.
More information about the general
mailing list