On 11/5/19 10:31 PM, Hari Bathini wrote:
>
>
> On 05/11/19 2:24 PM, Sourabh Jain wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/21/19 1:11 PM, Hari Bathini wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/10/19 6:35 PM, Sourabh Jain wrote:
>>>> The /sys/kernel/fadump_* sysfs files are replicated under
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> +Note: The following FADump sysfs files are deprecated.
>>>> +
>>>> + Deprecated Alternative
>>>> +
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> + /sys/kernel/fadump_enabled /sys/kernel/fadump/fadump_enabled
>>>> + /sys/kernel/fadump_registered
>>>> /sys/kernel/fadump/fadump_registered
>>>> + /sys/kernel/fadump_release_mem
>>>> /sys/kernel/fadump/fadump_release_mem
>>>
>>> /sys/kernel/fadump/* looks tidy instead of /sys/kernel/fadump/fadump_*
>>> I mean, /sys/kernel/fadump/fadump_enabled => /sys/kernel/fadump/enabled and
>>> such..
>>
>>
>>
>> Could you please confirm whether you want to address the sysfs file path
>> differently or
>> actually changing the sysfs file name from fadump_enabled to enabled.
>
> I meant, given the path "/sys/kernel/fadump/", the prefix fadump_ is
> redundant.
> If there are no conventions that we should retain the same file name, I
> suggest
> to drop the fadump_ prefix and just call them enabled, registered, etc..
Oh Yes, I agree with you. It's better not to prefix the sysfs files with
fadump_. As we already
have directory that convey the same information.
I did not find any rule regarding renaming an obsolete sysfs file in
Documentation/ABI/README.
So lets remove the fadump_ prefix from fadump sysfs file.
Thanks,
Sourabh Jain
