On 16.02.22 15:40, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:56 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:24 AM Marcelo Roberto Jimenez >> <marcelo.jimenez@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 1:55 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>>> I am curious about the usecases and how deeply you have built >>>> yourselves into this. >>> >>> I don't know if I understand what you mean, sorry. >> >> Why does the user need the sysfs ABI? What is it used for? >> >> I.e what is the actual use case? >> >>>>> In any case, the upstream file should be enough to test the issue reported here. >>>> >>>> The thing is that upstream isn't super happy that you have been >>>> making yourselves dependent on features that we are actively >>>> discouraging and then demanding that we support these features. >>> >>> Hum, demanding seems to be a strong word for what I am doing here. >>> >>> Deprecated should not mean broken. My point is: the API seems to be >>> currently broken. User space apps got broken, that's a fact. I even >>> took the time to bisect the kernel and show you which commit broke it. >>> So, no, I am not demanding. More like reporting and providing a >>> temporary solution to those with a similar problem. >>> >>> Maybe it is time to remove the API, but this is up to "upstream". >>> Leaving the API broken seems pointless and unproductive. >>> >>> Sorry for the "not super happiness of upstream", but maybe upstream >>> got me wrong. >>> >>> We are not "making ourselves dependent on features ...". The API was >>> there. We used it. Now it is deprecated, ok, we should move on. I got >>> the message. >> >> Ouch I deserved some slamming for this. >> >> I'm sorry if I came across as harsh :( >> >> I just don't know how to properly push for this. >> >> I have even pushed the option of the deprecated sysfs ABI >> behind the CONFIG_EXPERT option, which should mean that >> the kernel config has been made by someone who has checked >> the option "yes I am an expert I know what I am doing" >> yet failed to observe that this ABI is obsoleted since 5 years >> and hence failed to be an expert. >> >> Of course the ABI (not API really) needs to be fixed if we can find the >> problem. It's frustrating that fixing it seems to fix broken other >> features which are not deprecated, hence the annoyance on my >> part. >> > > I'm afraid we'll earn ourselves a good old LinusRant if we keep > pushing the character device as a solution to the problem here. > Marcelo is right after all: he used an existing user interface, the > interface broke, it must be fixed. > > I would prefer to find a solution that fixes Marcelo's issue while > keeping the offending patches in tree but it seems like the issue is > more complicated and will require some rework of the sysfs interface. > > In which case unless there are objections I lean towards reverting the > relevant commits. Reviving and old thread, hence a quick reminder: The patch at the start of this thread was applied and then reverted in 56e337f2cf13 with this text: ``` This commit - while attempting to fix a regression - has caused a number of other problems. As the fallout from it is more significant than the initial problem itself, revert it for now before we find a correct solution. ``` I still have this on my list of open regressions and that made me wonder: is anyone working on a "correct solution" (or was one even applied and I missed it)? Or is the situation so tricky that we better leave everything as it is? Marcelo, do you still care? Ciao, Thorsten
