Re: [Scst-devel] [PATCH 8/19]: SCST SYSFS interface implementation

[Richard Williams]

I'm just an outsider - but maybe my perspective has value - it seems there are two sides to this debate:

1) sysfs is great for scst due to certain stability concerns and code concerns
2) sysfs is bad for scst due to the intended role of sysfs and its namespace

Maybe I misunderstand -
But if both sides have merit then wouldn't a compromise be appropriate?

Maybe the sensical compromise is to use sysfs code to create a new namespace that would fit this purpose?  It seems that I am also hearing that the alternatives to sysfs aren't always adequate - so why not use sysfs, but have a place where it's appropriate to use it?  

Apologies in advance if I'm just way off base here... 

- Richard Williams--
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/