On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 10:14:26PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 17:13 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 01:20:09AM -0500, Nayna wrote: > > > > > > On 11/17/22 16:27, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 06:03:43PM -0500, Nayna wrote: > > > > > On 11/10/22 04:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > [...] > > > > > > I do not understand, sorry. What does namespaces have to do > > > > > > with this? > > > > > > sysfs can already handle namespaces just fine, why not use > > > > > > that? > > > > > Firmware objects are not namespaced. I mentioned it here as an > > > > > example of the difference between firmware and kernel objects. > > > > > It is also in response to the feedback from James Bottomley in > > > > > RFC v2 [ > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/41ca51e8db9907d9060cc38ad > > > > > b59a66dcae4c59b.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/]. > > > > I do not understand, sorry. Do you want to use a namespace for > > > > these or not? The code does not seem to be using namespaces. > > > > You can use sysfs with, or without, a namespace so I don't > > > > understand the issue here. > > > > > > > > With your code, there is no namespace. > > > > > > You are correct. There's no namespace for these. > > > > So again, I do not understand. Do you want to use filesystem > > namespaces, or do you not? > > Since this seems to go back to my email quoted again, let me repeat: > the question isn't if this patch is namespaced; I think you've agreed > several times it isn't. The question is if the exposed properties > would ever need to be namespaced. This is a subtle and complex > question which isn't at all explored by the above interchange. > > > How again can you not use sysfs or securityfs due to namespaces? > > What is missing? > > I already explained in the email that sysfs contains APIs like > simple_pin_... which are completely inimical to namespacing. Then how does the networking code handle the namespace stuff in sysfs? That seems to work today, or am I missing something? If the namespace support needs to be fixed up in sysfs (or in securityfs), then great, let's do that, and not write a whole new filesystem just because that's not done. Also this patch series also doesn't handle namespaces, so again, I am totally confused as to why this is even being discussed... thanks, greg k-h
