On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:27:16AM -0500, Douglas Gilbert wrote: > > Matthias Andree wrote: > > > On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Douglas Gilbert wrote: > > >>Matthias Andree wrote: > > >>>Does this work around new incompatibilities in the kernel > > >>>or does this fix lsscsi bugs? > > >> > > >>The former. In lk 2.6.16-rc1 the > > >>/sys/class/scsi_device/<hcil>/device/block symlink > > >>changed to ".../block:sd<x>" breaking lsscsi 0.16 (and > > >>earlier) and sg_map26 (in sg3_utils). > > > > > > Heck, what was the reason for breaking userspace again? > > > > Maybe the person responsible can answer. I'm only reacting > > to a change that broke two of my utilities. > > Probably better to cc the person responsible if you want an answer. > > > > Why would someone even consider using sysfs at all if it changes > > > incompatibly? > > > > Indeed. > > There seems to be no committment to making sysfs a stable part of the > kernel API. Which is really just another way of saying "we can't be > bothered to design it upfront, we'll just let it evolve into a mess > and then try to fix it afterwards". I sorta hate to say this, but I was sitting/working a few feet from Pat Mochel about 4 years ago when he was beginning on sysfs, and I told him to watch out, it could end up a mess just like procfs... :( -- ~Randy - : 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
