On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 02:14:50PM -0600, Andrew Patterson wrote: > > > Note that a sysfs implementation has problems. Binary attributes are > > > discouraged/not-allowed. > > > > I've never heard that. Is this similar to the argument > > "The sysfs tree would be too deep?" > > >From Documentation/filesystes/sysfs.txt > > "Attributes should be ASCII text files, preferably with only one value > per file. It is noted that it may not be efficient to contain only > value per file, so it is socially acceptable to express an array of > values of the same type. > > Mixing types, expressing multiple lines of data, and doing fancy > formatting of data is heavily frowned upon. Doing these things may get > you publically humiliated and your code rewritten without notice." > > My understanding is that sysfs is meant to be human-readable. I do not > know if this is a hard and fast rule or just a convention. Configfs is > probably a better fit at least for writeable attributes, but may not be > cooked yet. There's precedent for binary data in sysfs -- pci config space is one. - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
