On 2012-11-09 13:42, Philipp Reisner wrote: > [...] >>> It has the sysfs bits in again. The reason for that is that we want to >>> expose more information by that, and remove the /proc/drbd with the >>> next evolutionary step. -- In case this is a show stopper, let me >>> remove the sysfs bits. >> >> The exact same sysfs bits I complained about last time? If yes, then I >> don't understand why you haven't changed yet. Or why you are trying to >> push the same bits again that got rejected last time. >> > > I had the impression it was rejected because I submitted the pull request > too late to you. In the sense of, it might go in, if it gets submitted > for inclusion before the merge window opens... > Apparently my impression was wrong. You will get an updated pull-request > with the sysfs bits removed
It was late, but that was a different issue. I just re-read the Oct 3rd emails on this, and I definitely did recommend that you looked at debugfs or similar for this. We're not putting another top-queue level directory in for a block device that is specific to drbd. -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
