--- James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'd favour trying to separate kobject and struct device for this ...
> move all the sysfs stuff into kobject and device only stuff into struct
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Currently the kobject implementation is pure and well-defined. It is
a good implementation [kobject], and I'd hate to see it lost into being
convoluted with/into another model.
Currently the infrastructure layers are well defined:
kobject -> (A layer with objects, their behavor and implementation)
device -> (--"--)
sysfs. (--"--)
This isn't that bad of an infrastructure.
It is this well defined layering, i.e. objects, their behavior and
implementation, that allows different (better/worse) infrastructures
to be built on top of it.
It is this well-defined layering which will allow what Tejun wants
to be implemented.
> device ... but that would get us into disentangling the ksets, which, on
> balance, isn't going to be fun ...
Luben
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
