Boaz Harrosh, on 11/15/2010 08:19 PM wrote: > 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. As I explained in the previous e-mail, I believe, SYSFS perfectly suits SCST and SCST perfectly suits SYSFS. If you think it isn't so, let's discuss each showstopper for that, one after one. > Lets call it Linux-Target and unify all our efforts. Looks like a great idea! Thanks, 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
