Messages in this thread | | | From | "Kershner, David A" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH] staging: unisys: visorbus: constify attribute_group structures. | Date | Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:36:58 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@kroah.com] > Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 8:38 AM > To: Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com> > Cc: Kershner, David A <David.Kershner@unisys.com>; Sell, Timothy C > <Timothy.Sell@unisys.com>; Thompson, Bryan E. > <bryan.thompson@unisys.com>; jon.frisch@unisys.com; Binder, David > Anthony <David.Binder@unisys.com>; *S-Par-Maintainer > <SParMaintainer@unisys.com>; devel@driverdev.osuosl.org; linux- > kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: unisys: visorbus: constify attribute_group > structures. > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:43:14PM +0530, Arvind Yadav wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > On Monday 17 July 2017 04:15 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 02:55:37PM +0530, Arvind Yadav wrote: > > > > attribute_groups are not supposed to change at runtime. All functions > > > > working with attribute_groups provided by <linux/sysfs.h> work > > > > with const attribute_group. So mark the non-const structs as const. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorbus_main.c | 4 ++-- > > > > drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorchipset.c | 2 +- > > > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > Why not just use the ATTRIBUTE_GROUPS() macro for these? Or is there > > > something that is preventing that? > > Yes, we can use. if we are only initializing '.attrs'. > > ATTRIBUTE_GROUPS() will not work if we will initialize other member of > > attribute_group like 'bin_attrs', 'is_visible', and 'name'. > > That means you should redo this patch :) > > Also, your changelog text had a typo, it is "attribute_group", not > "attribute_groups". >
Greg, are you recommending that we shouldn't be setting the attribute_group .name field? What does it pick up if we don't specify it?
Also, for our attribute_groups in visorchipset, we are defining it with two different attribute_group variables. Are you allowed to use two different attribute_group variables in an attribute_groups, or is this frowned upon and we should flatten it out to just one? An example that we used in the kernel was:
static const struct attribute_group *l2_cache_pmu_attr_grps[] = { &l2_cache_pmu_format_group, &l2_cache_pmu_cpumask_group, NULL, };
Thanks, David Kershner
> thanks, > > greg k-h
| |