Maybe configfs isn't the way to go. I just think extending the 'probe' file is a bad idea, especially in the way your patch did it. I'm open to other alternatives. Since this is only for testing, perhaps debugfs applies better. What other alternatives have you explored? How about a Systemtap set to do it? :)
First this is a debugging interface. It doesn't need to have the most pretty interface in the world, because it will be only used for QA by a few people. Requiring setting parameters in two different file systems doesn't sound that appealing to me. systemtap for configuration also doesn't seem right. I liked Dave's earlier proposal to do a command line parameter like interface for "probe". Perhaps that can be done. It shouldn't need a lot of code. In fact there are already two different parser libraries for this: lib/parser.c and lib/params.c. One could chose the one that one likes better :-) Anything that needs a lot of code is a bad idea for this I think. A simple parser using one of the existing libraries should be simple enough though. Again it's just a QA interface, not the next generation of POSIX. -Andi -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>