Re: [patch] kernel sysfs events layer

[Arjan van de Ven]

> Look, I agree that unifying the two ideas and transports as much as
> possible is the right way to proceed.  But the fact is, as you said,
> transports _are_ important.  And simply always sending out a hotplug
> event _and_ a netlink event is silly and superfluous.  We need to make
> up our minds.

in addition I consider the 2 *uses* ortogonal. Hotplug historically has
been 1) reasonably heavy weight and 2) concerned with hardware changes.
General events such as say, "thermal throttling started" could of course
be munged into hotplug but to me that is something artificial.
Saying "look ma, the interfaces have the same types, so it has to be one
function" is imo the wrong thing to do. The usage is different (although
I will admit there is an overlapping area). The cost of sending a
message is different.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part