On 11/15/2010 06:16 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:46:38AM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >> All these issues we were discussing are interesting and are real Kernel >> problems. For instance the last comment you made was that for such a dynamic >> system and life time problems, and functionality. A better and expected >> solution might be the device tree and not sysfs. > > Yes, that is what I have been saying for a while now. > > Again: > This code is using kobjects incorrectly. > This code should not be using kobjects. > > this is my last response to this thread now, and I'm sure you can > understand why. > > thanks, > > greg k-h Thank you Greg for your time and most valuable input. I'm sorry for not understanding your position. I needed the clear cut statement: This code should not be using kobjects. i.e not belong in sysfs SCST guys. This sounds pretty clear cut to me. Sysfs was not built in mind for such dynamic systems, and it will cause never ending conflicts with future maintenance of sysfs vs SCST. Perhaps consider a new alternative like the device tree as Greg suggested or maybe finally accept the harsh realities of ConfigFS, and come join us in the LIO project. SCST is a most valuable project and community which we would like to join forces with in making Linux the best. Lets call it Linux-Target and unify all our efforts. Boaz -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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
