Re: Is configfs the right solution for configuration based fs?

[Johannes Berg]

> I was really interested in looking to start a filesystem based
> approach for configuration of wireless a while back, an alternative to
> nl80211 if you will, but I stopped after I was told about some major
> issues with configfs. I forget the issues raised clearly so I'd like
> to bring this up for debate to see what really are the issues, what
> needs to be fixed so we can *properly* use a fs for configuration of
> subsystems.

Personally, I have a few issues with this:
 1) why bother with a second configuration interface that we have to
    maintain, adjust, ...? if we need scriptable access, then make a
    good userspace tool that is scriptable.
 2) string-based stuff is often messy, especially the varying attributes
    like MAC addresses etc. Unless we just use binary files again, which
    is not very useful again. Take, for example, the monitor flags. If
    we use the same flags then nobody really knows what's up 
    (echo 0x3 > mntr_flags?) and if we use strings then we cannot easily
    ever rename the flag while keeping ABI/API compatibility.
 3) afaik configfs doesn't actually support the mkdir, ... stuff yet
    that you want for virtual interfaces.

johannes

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