Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] sysfs: Fix is_visible() support for binary attributes | From | Emilio López <> | Date | Wed, 9 Sep 2015 10:14:46 -0300 |
| |
On 09/09/15 01:12, Guenter Roeck wrote: > 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.
So, what about keeping it the way it is in the patch, and documenting it thoroughly? Otherwise, we could introduce another "is_bin_visible" function to do this same thing but just on binary attributes, but I'd rather not add a new function pointer if possible.
Cheers, Emilio
| |