lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] include: linux: sysfs: Add __ATTR_NAMED macro
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 09:23:31PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 09/13/2017 08:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 06:03:10PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:14:07 +0530
> >> Himanshi Jain <himshijain.hj@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Add __ATTR_NAMED macro similar to __ATTR but taking name as a
> >>> string instead of implicit conversion of argument to string using
> >>> the macro _stringify(_name).
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Himanshi Jain <himshijain.hj@gmail.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> include/linux/sysfs.h | 7 +++++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/sysfs.h b/include/linux/sysfs.h
> >>> index aa02c32..20321cf 100644
> >>> --- a/include/linux/sysfs.h
> >>> +++ b/include/linux/sysfs.h
> >>> @@ -104,6 +104,13 @@ struct attribute_group {
> >>> .store = _store, \
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> +#define __ATTR_NAMED(_name, _mode, _show, _store) { \
> >>
> >> I'm not sure about the naming here. The normal __ATTR macro is also
> >> 'named'. Maybe something as awful as
> >>
> >> __ATTR_STRING_NAME ?
> >>
> >> Greg what do you think?
> >
> > ick ick ick.
> >
> >> This is all to allow us to have names with operators in them without
> >> checkpatch complaining about them... A worthwhile aim just to stop
> >> more people wasting time trying to 'fix' those cases by adding spaces.
> >
> > Yeah, but this really seems "heavy" for just a crazy sysfs name in a
> > macro. Adding a whole new "core" define for that is a hard sell...
> >
> > I also want to get rid of the "generic" __ATTR type macros, and force
> > people to use the proper _RW and friends instead. I don't want to add
> > another new one that people will start to use that I later have to
> > change...
> >
> > So no, I don't like this, how about just changing your macros instead?
> > No one else has this problem :)
>
> Nobody else realized they have this problem yet. E.g. there are a few users
> of __ATTR in block/genhd.c that have the same issue and are likely to
> generate the same false positives from static checkers.

Then fix the broken static checkers :)

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-13 23:30    [W:0.072 / U:2.172 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site