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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers