On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:00:17PM -0800, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 04:32:09PM -0800, Yehuda Sadeh wrote: >> >> Hi Greg, >> >> >> >> Following is the new rbd sysfs interface. It lists devices in their own >> >> subdirectories, as well as their underlying snapshots. Please let us >> >> know if there's any issue you think we missed or did wrong. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Yehuda >> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> >> The new interface creates directories per mapped image >> >> and under each it creates a subdir per available snapshot. >> >> This allows keeping a cleaner interface within the sysfs >> >> guidelines. The ABI documentation was updated too. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> --- >> >> ?Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-rbd | ? 83 +++ >> >> ?drivers/block/rbd.c ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ?775 +++++++++++++++++------------ >> >> ?2 files changed, 547 insertions(+), 311 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-rbd b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-rbd >> >> new file mode 100644 >> >> index 0000000..4d96618 >> >> --- /dev/null >> >> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-rbd >> >> @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@ >> >> +What: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?/sys/class/rbd/ >> > >> > I thought I mentioned that you should not add new classes to the kernel. >> > Please don't do that, make it a bus_type instead. >> >> >> Ahmm.. apparently not in the rbd related threads. So moving things >> around and having rbd under /sys/bus we'll have the following: >> >> /sys/bus/rbd/drivers/rbd/.. >> add - add a device >> remove - remove a device > > These files could go in /sys/bus/rbd/ directly instead of burying under > 2 more layers, right? > >> >> /sys/bus/rbd/devices/<id> >> name >> pool >> ... >> >> /sys/bus/rbd/devices/<id>/snaps/<name> >> id >> size >> ... >> >> >> Would this work? > > With the change mentioned above, I think that seems sane, do you? > Yes, pretty much. One problem that I do see is that if we define the snaps/ as a device (and not just as a kobj) as you suggested before, it'll automatically create a 'uevent' entry under it which can be a real issue in the case we have a snapshot named like that. Shouldn't we just create it as a kobj in that case? Thanks, Yehuda -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
