Subject: Re: patch sysfs-implement-sysfs-tagged-directory-support.patch added to gregkh-2.6 tree

From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:29:40 -0500

Quoting Tejun Heo ([email-masked]):
> Hello,
> 
> On 04/30/2010 07:24 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>> I wish at least more comments are added before it goes mainline.  I
> >>> don't really understand the current form.
> >>
> >> Ok, that's fine with me, I'll pull it back out.
> > 
> > ?????
> > 
> > Tejun you have offered nothing constructive to the review, except looking
> > and saying you don't understand what is going on.
> 
> Eric, no need to get too touchy and you're right in part in saying all
> I'm saying is basically "I don't understand it" which is the same
> reason why I'm not nacking it and explicitly stated that I would be
> okay with the series going in if Greg/Kay would be okay with it.
> Again, about the same thing with the above comment, I was *wishing*
> for more comments *before it goes mainline*.

I'm not sure if you mean "more in-line comments" or more discussion.  If
you mean the latter, then I think the patch intro was deceptive as it has
gotten more acks than that - I acked the whole set, and I think it didn't
get more discussion than it did because it got much discussion in previous
versions.

This subset looks a bit mysterious because it offers the support for
tagged /sys/class/net, but that implementation, which clarifies why some
of this is done, comes in the later patches in Eric's set.  Can you please
jump to his tree, take a look at 
http://git.kernel.org/gitweb.cgi?p=linux/kernel/git/ebiederm/linux-2.6.32-rc5-sysfs-enhancements.git;a=commit;h=e7468796a9756b28e0ab38eb021025bbd3712823
and let us know if that does not clarify?

Hmm, but looking back over the previous thread (Mar 31) I guess you
mean more in-line comments around the callbacks, presumably things
like class_dir_child_ns_type() and struct kobj_ns_type_operations
members?

It sounds like what you'd really like is to have any explicit mention
to namespaces pulled out of drivers/base (layering as you keep saying)?
But will there be a use for this outside of namespaces?  Does trying to
anticipate that fall into the category of over-abstraction?

-serge