Re: [RFC] fix sysfs symlinks

[viro]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 03:02:32PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> No, we don't want that.  It's ok to have a dangling symlink in the fs if
> the device the link was pointing to is now gone.  All of the struct
> class_device stuff relies on the fact that a struct device can go away
> at any time, and nothing bad will happen (with the exception of a stale
> symlink.)
> 
> Yeah, it can cause a few odd looking trees when you unplug and replug a
> device a bunch of times, all the while grabbing a reference to the class
> device, but once everything is released by the user, it is cleaned up
> properly, with no harm done to anything.

Except that these "symlinks" are expected to follow the target upon
renames.  Which means that we either need a very messy scanning of
the entire tree on every rename (obviously not feasible) or we need
to store pointer to target and regenerate the path.  Which, in turn,
requires holding a reference.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/