Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:24:48 +0100 | From | viro@parcelfa ... | Subject | Re: [RFC] fix sysfs symlinks |
| |
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 03:02:32PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > No, we don't want that. It's ok to have a dangling symlink in the fs if > the device the link was pointing to is now gone. All of the struct > class_device stuff relies on the fact that a struct device can go away > at any time, and nothing bad will happen (with the exception of a stale > symlink.) > > Yeah, it can cause a few odd looking trees when you unplug and replug a > device a bunch of times, all the while grabbing a reference to the class > device, but once everything is released by the user, it is cleaned up > properly, with no harm done to anything.
Except that these "symlinks" are expected to follow the target upon renames. Which means that we either need a very messy scanning of the entire tree on every rename (obviously not feasible) or we need to store pointer to target and regenerate the path. Which, in turn, requires holding a reference. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |