On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 09:00:56AM +1000, Grant Coady wrote: > Hi All, > On Wed, 4 May 2005 15:16:11 -0400, Yani Ioannou <yani.ioannou at gmail.com> wrote: > > >I was tempted to do this but it set off alarms in my better coding > >judgement (abusing a pointer to store an int). It is certainly > >'cleaner' than defining the awkward static ints, but aside from the > >language abuse would doing something like this cause any portability > >issues? And yes, what about those poor kittens? ;-) > Yes, I want to know too :) I don't care about the kittens, abuse that void *, that's what it is there for. > >Well I'm an almost reasonable person ;-). Yes this code was mainly for > >comment so it definitely needs cleaning up, although any pointers on > >how/where are welcome. > > I have queries, is there a reason why sysfs doesn't return multiple > values? Yes, that is the way it is designed. One value per file is the RULE in sysfs files. End of story. > Secondly is there a design document I've missed for this? What does > dynamic sysfs look like to user? sub-directory per device/block or > in the same directory level namespace? I damaged the patches somewhere, > one didn't apply so couldn't 'see' it yet. These patches don't change anything that the user sees, becides a smaller kernel memory footprint. The sysfs tree and files stay the same. thanks, greg k-h
