On 2005-10-03, at 18:39, Luben Tuikov wrote:
On 10/03/05 12:35, Andrew Patterson wrote:
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 18:29 +0200, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
They give a means of possible synchronization between beneviolent
users, but not a mandatory lock on the shared resource.
Nor do they protect against external events, such as disk
insertion/removals, and someone kicking a cable.
As has _always_ been the case in UNIX: Provide capability,
not policy.
This is at least arguable and not applicable, since we are talking
about Linux and not UNIX here. UNIX is just fine using IOCTL or
SYSCTL instead of a crude pseudo file system for this kind of things.
The more things are off loaded to userspace the better.
That is not the question at hand and an invalid statement per se.
It's not a design goal in itself to have everything in user space.
However you admitt indirectly that the problem in question is valid
and that it exists on the design level of the interface at hand and
that it's an inherent error in this interface, since you don't know a
solution to it.
Look at it this way: the deadbolt on your house door does
not _eliminate_ the possibility of someone cleaning out
your house, even if you have a security system and/or
a guard dog.
Problems which can be solved by proper solutions easly and without
cost should be solved and not talked away to justify someones idee
fixe about interface desing.
-
: 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
