From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932278Ab2CENa1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2012 08:30:27 -0500 Received: from mail-ee0-f46.google.com ([74.125.83.46]:64499 "EHLO mail-ee0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932194Ab2CENaY (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2012 08:30:24 -0500 Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jirislaby@gmail.com designates 10.14.28.140 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jirislaby@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=jirislaby@gmail.com Message-ID: <4F54BFEC.6000206@suse.cz> Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:30:20 +0100 From: Jiri Slaby User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120222 Thunderbird/11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: "Eric W. Biederman" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jiri Slaby , Greg KH , Alan Cox , LKML , Al Viro , Maciej Rutecki Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: Optionally count subdirectories to support buggy applications References: <4F27120A.4040106@suse.cz> <20120130220611.GA26655@kroah.com> <20120130221059.26ab5edf@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20120130222717.GA6393@kroah.com> <4F27C6EB.2070305@suse.cz> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/02/2012 12:18 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> >> No extra "keep track of inode counts by hand" crap, and no idiotic >> config options that just make it easy to (conditionally) get things >> wrong. Just do it right, and do it *unconditionally* right. > > And btw, "nlink shows number of subdirectories" for a directory entry > really *is* right. It's how Unix filesystems work, like it or not. > > It's mainly lazy/bad filesystems that set nlink to 1. So the whole > "nlink==1" case is meant for crap like FAT etc, not for a filesystem > that we control and that could easily just do it right. > > Which is why I detest that config option. It's as if you were asking the user > > "Do you want to make the sysfs filesystem act like crap filesystems?" > > and kernel config time. What kind of inane question is that? What's going on here? I still have to revert "sysfs: Kill nlink counting." with today's -next to have working sensors. thanks, -- js suse labs