LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* configfs issues
@ 2007-01-11 17:55 Michael Noisternig
  0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Michael Noisternig @ 2007-01-11 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

Hi all,

I've got some issues with using configfs in my module. The problem I ran 
into could be solved if configfs_group_operations->drop_item() would 
allow returning an error code. But I'll try to explain...

Say the user creates one object, let's say as objects/myobj1/. This 
object is dependent on some (shared) parameters which the user created 
under params/myparams1/. Now while myobj1/ is 'active', I don't want to 
let the user remove myparams1/. I can prevent this by making the user 
create a symlink(2) in the objects/myobj1/ directory to myparams1/, i.e. 
objects/myobj1/params/ -> ../../params/myparams1/, to denote its use. 
Now - if I have read the documentation correctly - the user cannot 
remove myparams1/ without removing the params/ link first. So fine, so good.

Next the user may create several objects which may be dependent on 
several params objects. Now I can solve this by creating a default group 
for each object, i.e. on myobj1 creation there is objects/myobj1/params/ 
automatically. In that directory the user may create symlink(2)s to 
several params/*/ dirs. Fine again.

Now what I want is the list of params an object uses to be an ordered 
list. I cannot do this because there is no intrinsic order in a 
filesystem. I can get the order by instead having an attribute called 
param_list which contains the ordered list of all params to use, e.g.
 > cat param_list
However, this way I don't have any way to prevent the user from removing 
params because configfs_group_operations->drop_item() is void and does 
not allow me to return an error.

Question now: Do you think, ->drop_item() should be changed to allow 
returning an error? If not, what do you think would be an appropriate 
solution for the problem? (One solution would be that I trace back every 
object that uses the params to get dropped, and delete the according 
params entry from the object's params_list automatically... another 
would be, that I keep a reference on each params used, so they are 
deleted only from configfs but not from memory on removal, and rename 
the list entries to <removed> or whatever... both ideas I don't like too 

Thank you for any feedback!!!

PS: Please CC me on your replies, I'm not a LKML subscriber.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] only message in thread

only message in thread, other threads:[~2007-01-11 18:16 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-01-11 17:55 configfs issues Michael Noisternig

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).