On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 03:54:13PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 02:48:10PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Dave Hansen <hansendc@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
