Re: sysfs -> /sbin/hotplug -> udev

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 04:28:42AM -0400, esmith wrote:
> 
> These are all good points, however, isn't sysfs a friendlier solution? 
> I'm usually in favor of solutions that are friendlier if all other 
> issues are mostly equal.

That depends on the needs. E.g. sysctls just work in chroot jails, which
might or might not be useful. For security reason, having a filtering
capability is easier to implement than a full-blown filesystem with all
its semantic.

> I'll even go out on limb and wonder if it might even be easier to make a 
> new sysfs than it would be to rework sysctl. Sysfs might even be more 
> flexible and allowing for unexpected changes in the future.

Sysctl works fine. That's the difference with Linux, we already have a
working solution and don't have to reinvent the wheel.

> Finally, even if a sysfs for DF existed, it's just a pseudo-filesystem 
> so no one would be required to use it.

That's what I want to keep. Linux did IMO something stupid to depend on
/proc for functionality like ps and I want to avoid that.

> 
> Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> ..
> > Heck, you could even write a sysctlfs if you want to use the
> > normal fd API.
> 
> Isn't that basically what sysfs is?

Well, might be. I haven't looked at sysfs and the API is provides. You have
to measure against the ease of use for static sysctls.

Joerg