On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 09:58 +0200, ext Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Thursday 2010-06-03 09:04, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > >Looking closer, it seems that it makes a bit of sense to add a kernel > >module to /sys/device/system. I think it makes more sense than adding > >to the module class or to the net class, actually. The idletimer is not > >a net device (so it doesn't fit in /sys/class/net) and it is not a > >module, even though it may be handled by the xt_IDLETIMER module. > > > >So we can look at the xt_idletimer as a system device, which is not a > >peripheral device in itself, but a software timer device (there are > >already similar components). > > > >I'll add the kernel object we need as a system class device, so it will > >go under /sys/devices/system/xt_idletimer. Does that make sense to you? > > Mh.. somehow I'd pick /sys/devices/virtual/xt_idletimer. > Or even create a /sys/net/xt_idletimer. (/sys has conceptual > subsystems directly beneath it: devices, fs, kernel, ...) Yes, I think I'll use the /sys/device/virtual/misc class. That seems to be the place where, well, miscellaneous devices go. :) I think it fits pretty nicely in that concept. We could also have a /sys/net subsystem, but that's very high in the sysfs hierarchy and adding it in the xt_IDLETIMER module wouldn't make any sense. This is something that should be added (if really needed) in the net core subsystem, I guess. I'll use the first option and resubmit the patch as v3. -- Cheers, Luca. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
