Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Kay Sievers
Date: Friday, October 26, 2007 - 8:33 am

On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 17:22 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

Yes.


Yes, "struct device" objects, assigned to the "bdi" class. (Don't use
class_device, that will be removed soon.)


Probably not. You can name it how you want, you can inherit the name of
the parent, or prefix it with whatever fits, they just need to be
unique. Things like the "fuse-%llu" name would work just fine. I guess
you already solved that problem in the debugfs directory.


The attributes would just be files in the device object.


You look for the name (prefix), try: "ls /sys/class/sound/", it's the
same model all over the place.

Kay

-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
-mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Andrew Morton, (Mon Oct 1, 2:22 pm)
wibbling over the cpuset shed domain connnection, Paul Jackson, (Mon Oct 1, 2:34 pm)
x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Andi Kleen, (Mon Oct 1, 11:18 pm)
Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Andrew Morton, (Mon Oct 1, 11:32 pm)
Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Andi Kleen, (Tue Oct 2, 12:01 am)
Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Andrew Morton, (Tue Oct 2, 12:18 am)
Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, (Tue Oct 2, 12:36 am)
Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Oct 2, 12:37 am)
Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Andrew Morton, (Tue Oct 2, 12:43 am)
Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Andi Kleen, (Tue Oct 2, 12:46 am)
Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Matt Mackall, (Tue Oct 2, 12:55 am)
Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Thomas Gleixner, (Tue Oct 2, 12:58 am)
Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Andi Kleen, (Tue Oct 2, 12:59 am)
v4l-stk11xx* [Was: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24], Jiri Slaby, (Tue Oct 2, 12:59 am)
Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, (Tue Oct 2, 1:16 am)
per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24), Peter Zijlstra, (Tue Oct 2, 1:17 am)
writeback fixes, Fengguang Wu, (Tue Oct 2, 1:39 am)
Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Andy Whitcroft, (Tue Oct 2, 2:26 am)
Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Yasunori Goto, (Tue Oct 2, 3:48 am)
Re: wibbling over the cpuset shed domain connnection, Nick Piggin, (Tue Oct 2, 5:36 am)
Re: wibbling over the cpuset shed domain connnection, Nick Piggin, (Tue Oct 2, 6:12 am)
Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Pekka Enberg, (Tue Oct 2, 9:12 am)
new aops merge [was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24], Hugh Dickins, (Tue Oct 2, 9:21 am)
Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Nish Aravamudan, (Tue Oct 2, 9:40 am)
Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Lee Schermerhorn, (Tue Oct 2, 10:17 am)
Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Lee Schermerhorn, (Tue Oct 2, 10:25 am)
remove zero_page (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24), Nick Piggin, (Tue Oct 2, 10:45 am)
Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Christoph Lameter, (Tue Oct 2, 11:16 am)
Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Christoph Lameter, (Tue Oct 2, 11:18 am)
Re: kswapd min order, slub max order [was Re: -mm merge pl ..., Christoph Lameter, (Tue Oct 2, 11:28 am)
Re: wibbling over the cpuset shed domain connnection, Paul Jackson, (Tue Oct 2, 10:21 pm)
Re: wibbling over the cpuset shed domain connnection, Paul Jackson, (Wed Oct 3, 12:00 am)
Re: wibbling over the cpuset shed domain connnection, Andrew Morton, (Wed Oct 3, 3:57 am)
Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24), Martin Knoblauch, (Wed Oct 3, 4:00 am)
Re: remove zero_page (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24), Linus Torvalds, (Wed Oct 3, 8:21 am)
r/o bind mounts, was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Christoph Hellwig, (Tue Oct 9, 2:19 am)
Re: remove zero_page (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24), Linus Torvalds, (Tue Oct 9, 7:52 am)
Re: remove zero_page (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24), Linus Torvalds, (Tue Oct 9, 7:22 pm)
Re: remove zero_page (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24), Linus Torvalds, (Tue Oct 9, 8:06 pm)
Re: remove zero_page (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24), Linus Torvalds, (Tue Oct 9, 10:20 pm)
Re: remove zero_page (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24), Linus Torvalds, (Wed Oct 10, 8:04 am)
Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Borislav Petkov, (Sat Oct 13, 1:44 am)
Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Andrew Morton, (Sat Oct 13, 1:52 am)
Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Borislav Petkov, (Sat Oct 13, 4:45 am)
Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24), Kay Sievers, (Fri Oct 26, 8:33 am)
Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24), Trond Myklebust, (Fri Oct 26, 9:37 am)
[PATCH] mm: sysfs: expose the BDI object in sysfs, Peter Zijlstra, (Fri Nov 2, 7:59 am)