Re: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

On Wednesday 07 January 2009 13:16:47 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:06:44 +1100 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> 
wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 January 2009 10:13:44 Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > (cc added)
> > >
> > > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:57:44 -0500
> > >
> > > Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 12:43:00AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > softirq-introduce-statistics-for-softirq.patch
> > > > > proc-export-statistics-for-softirq-to-proc.patch
> > > > > proc-update-document-for-proc-softirqs-and-proc-stat.patch
> > > >
> > > > Why is this in procfs?
> > >
> > > softirq stuff in /proc seems appropriate?  It's alongside
> > > /proc/interrupts.  We could put it in /trendy-fs-of-the-day, but what
> > > would it gain us?
> >
> > Haven't we kind of agreed to use sysfs for things like this? A few years
> > too late to be raising objections now ;)
> >
> > One problem I have with sysfs is that it (the directory structure, rather
> > than the sysfs code itself) really needs to be policed and maintained
> > by a central and coherent place/person with taste. Otherwise people put
> > their own random crap with their own random naming schemes and becomes
> > a crazy mess.
> >
> > softirqs are not hardware but purely kernel subsystem construct, as such
> > they probably go under /sys/kernel/. People unfortunately have already
> > added random crap to the /sys/kernel/ root directory, but future
> > additions really should go into a good subdirectory structure (putting it
> > into the root directory is equivalent to ditching all subdirectories from
> > /proc/sys/).
>
> All sounds like pointless wank^Wbikeshed painting to me.

Really? Our userspace ABI? You think it works bestter when there is as
little thought as possible put into it and everybody just does what
they feel is best?


> > /sys/kernel/softirq/*, I suggest.
>
> What would that *improve*?

It would be logically in the right place.