Seeking help addressing maintainer objections

[Bjørn Mork]

Ian Pilcher <arequipeno at gmail.com> writes:

> It's not absolutely needed, but it does make it easier to unlink an LED
> from all devices by using the names of the symlinks in the LED's
> linked_devices directory, which will be kernel names.

Yes, I agree that things are much easier if those names can be fed
directly into the unlink attribute.  And even better if the names in the
linked_devices directory actually matched what you used to link them.

So why not go for "major:minor" everywhere?  I.e for link, unlink and
also for the symlinks in linked_devices.

>> And if file name with symlink resolution really is a problem, then why
>> can't you use the major:minor for link/unlink?  That's easy for
>> userspace to look up whether the input is a device path or a sysfs path.
>> And it avoids having to wait for an unrelated and unnecessary device
>> path creation.
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/usb/core/ledtrig-usbport.c
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/usb/core/ledtrig-usbport.c?id=0f247626cbbfa2010d2b86fdee652605e084e248
>
> Personally, I don't think that using file paths is a problem, and it
> can be useful.  ("/dev/vg_root/lv_root" is probably more useful than
> "dm-0".)  OTOH, "sda" is slightly simpler than "/dev/sda", so I think
> that the ideal situation would be to have both interfaces available.
>
> I did propose using device numbers.  I never received a response from
> the maintainer.

I believe that's how most maintainers work unless the proposal was in
patch form :-)



Bjørn