>> The simple fact is that the very existence of the kernfs API to [...]
>I think I'm beginning to see part of the problem.
>
>You are seeing kernfs as an API.

Yes. Its an API created for use by setkey and racoon, to avoid
fixing manisest bugs in the KAME implmenation of the PF_KEY API.
It has no other real purpose.

[...]

>While I haven't looked at it in enough detail to be sure,

Why are you spamming the list based on mere supposition?  Don't you
think the onus is on you to acquaint yourself with the technical
facts first?

[...]


>Finally, some light.

Again: why are you spamming a technical list from a position of
thorough-going ignorance?

>Yes, if the kernfs interface significantly impairs (uglifies,
>complicates, whatever) the rest of the code, that can be a good reason
>for preventing, or eliminating, it.  

>(Its origins, which you went into
>such length about, I see as mostly irrelevant: 

On this, your are simply incorrect. ``No code before its time''.
There's no point in discussing that further.