Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:41:08 +0200 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH wq/for-next 2/2] workqueue: let device core create the WQ_UNBOUND attributes |
| |
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 01:34:49PM +0300, Julian Wiedmann wrote: > On 07.06.21 13:27, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 11:44:20AM +0200, Julian Wiedmann wrote: > >> Wrap the attributes for a WQ_UNBOUND workqueue in ATTRIBUTE_GROUPS(), > >> and wire them up in dev->groups so that the device core can manage them > >> for us. > >> > >> As device_add() will add such attributes _prior_ to raising the KOBJ_ADD > >> uevent, this also makes the initial uevent suppression unnecessary. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@linux.ibm.com> > >> --- > >> kernel/workqueue.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- > >> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c > >> index 817dc2d7438a..629859ac5262 100644 > >> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c > >> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c > >> @@ -5449,6 +5449,9 @@ static ssize_t wq_pool_ids_show(struct device *dev, > >> return written; > >> } > >> > >> +static struct device_attribute wq_sysfs_unbound_attr_pool_ids = > >> + __ATTR(pool_ids, 0444, wq_pool_ids_show, NULL); > > > > __ATTR_RO() please. > > > > I did consider using DEVICE_ATTR_*(), yes. But renaming all the _show and _store > functions added too much unrelated churn for my taste. So let's maybe do this > as a follow-on?
Wait, oops, yes, do NOT use __ATTR() for a device attribute, use DEVICE_ATTR_RO() please.
And yes, if you want to do it as a pater patch in this series that is fine, just say you are moving the attribute definitions closer to the callbacks in this patch.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |