[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] sysfs: Fix is_visible() support for binary attributes
On 09/08/2015 08:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 06:10:16PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> Hi Emilio,
>> On 09/08/2015 05:51 PM, Emilio López wrote:
>>> Hi Greg & Guenter,
>> [ ... ]
>>>>>> Unless I am missing something, this is not explained anywhere, but it is
>>>>>> not entirely trivial to understand. I think it should be documented.
>>> I agree. I couldn't find any mention of what this int was supposed to be by looking at Documentation/ (is_visible is not even mentioned :/) or include/linux/sysfs.h. Once we settle on something I'll document it before sending a v2.
>> In the include file ? No strong preference, though.
>>> By the way, I wrote a quick coccinelle script to match is_visible() users which reference the index (included below), and it found references to drivers which do not seem to use any binary attributes, so I believe changing the index meaning shouldn't be an issue.
>> Good.
>>>>> I agree, make i the number of the bin attribute and that should solve
>>>>> this issue.
>>>> No, that would conflict with the "normal" use of is_visible for non-binary
>>>> attributes, and make the index all but useless, since the is_visible function
>>>> would have to search through all the attributes anyway to figure out which one
>>>> is being checked.
>>> Yeah, using the same indexes would be somewhat pointless, although not many seem to be using it anyway (only 14 files matched). Others seem to be comparing the attr* instead. An alternative would be to use negative indexes for binary attributes and positive indexes for normal attributes.
>> ... and I probably wrote or reviewed a significant percentage of those ;-).
>> Using negative numbers for binary attributes is an interesting idea.
>> Kind of unusual, though. Greg, any thoughts on that ?
> Ick, no, that's a mess, maybe we just could drop the index alltogether?

No, please don't. Having to manually compare dozens of index pointers would be
even more of a mess.


 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-09 06:21    [W:0.226 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site