On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 09:42:51AM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote: Sorry for the delay, google decided to mark your responses as "spam" :(
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 04:40:07PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 04:11:20PM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote: > > > +#define MEMFS_CLASS_NAME "memoryfs" > > > > One question, a "*fs" name in the kernel usually implies it is a > > separate filesystem, which this isn't at all, it's just a "normal" > > class/subsystem in the kernel. So how about "memory" instead? > > "memory" is the name used by the current sysfs memory layout code in > drivers/base/memory.c. So it can't be the same unless we are going to > create a toggle a boot time to select between the models, which is > something I am looking to add if this code/design is acceptable to > people. I know it can't be the same, but this is like "memory_v2" or something, right? I suggest you make it an either/or option, given that you feel the existing layout just will not work properly for you. > The design is that people with large memory systems would pass a boot > parameter that selects this alternate layout, so that the majority > of non-large-memory users and any userspace programs that depend on the > old layout would be unaffected. > > In the meantime, the name "memfs" was chosen for the RFC so that people > could compile and run the new model concurrently with the current model. It's a really bad name for a driver subsystem, please don't use it. thanks, greg k-h -- 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/
