The docs state that sysfs and configfs are peers that meet different needs, but doesn't explicitly make it clear that if a subsystem needs functionality that spans both, it is preferable to use both instead of trying to cram everything into one or the other. Signed-off-by: Andy Grover <agrover@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs.txt | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs.txt b/Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs.txt index b40fec9..a94c9c3 100644 --- a/Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs.txt +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs.txt @@ -33,7 +33,8 @@ lifetime of the representation is completely driven by userspace. The kernel modules backing the items must respond to this. Both sysfs and configfs can and should exist together on the same -system. One is not a replacement for the other. +system. One is not a replacement for the other. They are +complementary, and a client module may have need to support both. [Using configfs] -- 2.1.0 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
