> > That's why I think a "non-physical" tree (not under $DRIVERFS/root) is more
> > sensible in such cases. Which is not to say it's without additional issues
> > (like how to establish/maintain driver linkages that are DAGs not single
> > parent trees) but it wouldn't require drivers to dig as deeply into lower
> > levels of their stack. (And some network interfaces might well live in
> > such a non-physical tree, not just iSCSI...)
> >
>
> I am in complete agreement, from my little view of where driverfs
> currently stands a non-physical tree is going to have to happen sooner
> or later, why not now?
No. The physical hierarchy in driverfs is meant to be as accurate as
possible. Yes, it's idealistic, and at some point we might have to make a
bit of an exception. But, I refuse to break that model yet.
-pat
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 07 2002 - 22:00:07 EST