Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency improvement

[Rick Lindsley]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 01:48:45PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:

> It should be obvious that representing each consecutive memory range with a
> separate directory entry is far from an optimal way of representing
> something like this. It's outright silly.

On 6/22/20 11:03 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

> I agree.  And again, Ian, you are just "kicking the problem down the
> road" if we accept these patches.  Please fix this up properly so that
> this interface is correctly fixed to not do looney things like this.

Given that we cannot change the underlying machine representation of this hardware, what do you (all, not just you Greg) consider to be "properly"?

Rick