Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:12:37 -0700 | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Subject | Re: [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.
Guenter
| |