I'm just an outsider - but maybe my perspective has value - it seems there are two sides to this debate: 1) sysfs is great for scst due to certain stability concerns and code concerns 2) sysfs is bad for scst due to the intended role of sysfs and its namespace Maybe I misunderstand - But if both sides have merit then wouldn't a compromise be appropriate? Maybe the sensical compromise is to use sysfs code to create a new namespace that would fit this purpose? It seems that I am also hearing that the alternatives to sysfs aren't always adequate - so why not use sysfs, but have a place where it's appropriate to use it? Apologies in advance if I'm just way off base here... - Richard Williams-- 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
