James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It sort of petered out into a long winding thread about why not use > sysfs instead, which really doesn't look like a good idea to me. It seemed to turn into a set of procfs symlinks that pointed at a bunch of sysfs stuff - or possibly some special filesystem. > Could I make a suggestion about how this should be done in a way that > doesn't actually require the fsinfo syscall at all: it could just be > done with fsconfig. I'd prefer to keep it separate. The interface for fsconfig() is intended to move stuff into the kernel, not out of it. Better to add a parallel syscall to go the other way (kind of like we have setxattr/getxattr, sendmsg/recvmsg). Further, fsinfo() can refer directly to a file/fd/mount/whatever, but fsconfig() doesn't do that. You have to use fspick() to get a context before you can use fsconfig(). Now, that's fine if you want to gather several pieces of information from a particular object, but it's not so good if you want to get one piece of information from each of several objects. > ... make it table configured... I did, kind of (though I didn't call it that). Al rewrote the code to get rid of it. David
