Dmitry Torokhov, on 11/15/2010 09:59 AM wrote: > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 03:59:38PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:20:18PM +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote: >>> So, I decided to reimplement it to be completely synchronous. SYSFS >>> authors did really great job and thanks to the excellent internal SYSFS >>> design and implementation it is absolutely safe. See: >>> >>> [root@tgt ~]# modprobe scst >>> [root@tgt ~]# cd /sys/kernel/scst_tgt/ >> >> Sorry, but no, you can't put this in /sys/kernel/ without getting the >> approval of the sysfs maintainer. >> >> I really don't understand why you are using kobjects in the first place, >> why isn't this in the main device tree in the kernel, using 'struct >> device'? > > It is my understanding that Vlad is able to reflect the topology by > manipulating sysfs objects there. Correct. As I wrote in the previous e-mail, SCST doesn't deal with devices, so doesn't have a need to use struct device. >> In the end, I guess it really doesn't matter as this code isn't getting >> merged so I shouldn't worry about it, right? >> > > This is quite unfortunate as I still have not seen the public comparison > of the 2 implementations and the lists of benefits and shortfalls for > both of them. Indeed, it is unfortunate :(. Undercover political games continue... Vlad -- 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
