Re: [Scst-devel] Discussion about SCST sysfs layout and implementation.

From: Daniel Debonzi
Date: Thu Apr 23 2009 - 12:11:57 EST


Hi all,

I was off those days due to a long holiday here in Brazil. Now I am getting back to it.

Kay Sievers wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 19:56, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 19:43, Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thank you for the suggestion. If nobody objects, we will go with
/sys/class/scst_tgt.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 19:43, Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I agree, looks like using struct device instead of struct kobject should
additionally complicate the code a lot for not clear gain.
Thes both replies together suggest that you miss how sysfs and the
driver core works. Please go and read the current code, and look at
sysfs, before trying anything like this.

There is no way to add any stuff to /sys/class/scst_tgt/ without using
proper "struct device" objects.

For the same reason we will not have a disconnected device tree, we
will not havet any raw kobject in the /sys/devices, /sys/class,
/sys/bus directories.

As a starting point, consider creating a "scst" bus_type. Then make
sure all devices you need are uniquely named, so they can be in a flat
list in /sys/bus/scst/devices/.

Then add all the devices as struct_device to the tree, maybe use an
existing parent struct_device (like a pci device) if you have one, or
create a custom one in /sys/devices/ if there is nothing to use.

All the devices you add will show up in a hierarchy in /sys/devices/
depending on the parent information you supply, and every single
device of your subsystem will be listed in a flat list in
/sys/bus/scst/devices/*. You will also get proper events for userspace
that way.

The question is where the actual block devices hang off, and if they
can use one of the created scst devices, or if they will be virtual
ones?

Vlad, how do you think we should move on it?
Do you want me to try to go deeper on it and make a new plan/propose or would you like to reformulate the RFC you did?

As you all know my knowledge still limited on this subject so I don't feel comfortable to make this sort of decisions at this moments.

Regards,
Daniel Debonzi


--
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/