On Wed, 27 August 2008 17:47:43 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
quoted text
> 
> The plus of sysfs I see is that I can add more files to expose more
> information in sysfs, while I can not change MEMGETINFO ioctl. E.g., I
> need to expose sub-page size to user-space, and I cannot do this with
> MEMGETINFO.

sysfs makes adding new attributes easier, yes.  But once added you
cannot remove the attribute again - ever.  Which means that either way
you need to tread carefully and think twice before making a rash
decision.

quoted text
> > So what was the reason again why mtd needs two userspace interfaces
> > instead of just one?
> 
> I would like to make udev creating MTD devices, instead of creating them
> by hands. Adding MTD to LDM would anyway introduce corresponding sysfs
> files, right? This means we would have one more interface anyway.

Could be useful, I don't mind you sending a patch.  However, does this
means that MEMGETINFO64 or some other ioctl should not be done?  Should
flash_erase open, read and close 8 seperate files instead of doing a
single ioctl?  And should our support for large devices wait for the
sysfs support that has been talked about and not done for about two
years already?

Call me a sceptic.

Jörn

-- 
The cheapest, fastest and most reliable components of a computer
system are those that aren't there.
-- Gordon Bell, DEC labratories
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/