lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH -next] bcache: Convert to DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE
From
Date


在 2020/7/17 10:22, Coly Li 写道:
> On 2020/7/16 17:54, Coly Li wrote:
>> On 2020/7/16 17:03, Qinglang Miao wrote:
>>> From: Yongqiang Liu <liuyongqiang13@huawei.com>
>>>
>>
>> Hi Qianlang and Yongqiang,
>>
>>> Use DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE macro to simplify the code.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Liu <liuyongqiang13@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/md/bcache/closure.c | 16 +++-------------
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
>>> index 99222aa5d..37b9c5d49 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
>>> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ void closure_debug_destroy(struct closure *cl)
>>>
>>> static struct dentry *closure_debug;
>>>
>>> -static int debug_seq_show(struct seq_file *f, void *data)
>>> +static int debug_show(struct seq_file *f, void *data)
>>> {
>>> struct closure *cl;
>>>
>>> @@ -188,17 +188,7 @@ static int debug_seq_show(struct seq_file *f, void *data)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> -static int debug_seq_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>>> -{
>>> - return single_open(file, debug_seq_show, NULL);
>>> -}
>>> -
>>
>> Here NULL is sent to single_open(), in DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE()
>> inode->i_private is sent into single_open(). I don't see the commit log
>> mentions or estimates such change.
>>
>
> Still this change modifies original code logic, I need to know the exact
> effect before taking this patch.
>
It's equivalent to original code logic, because inode->iprivate equals
to third parameter of debugfs_create_file() which is NULL.
>
>>
>>> -static const struct file_operations debug_ops = {
>>> - .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>>> - .open = debug_seq_open,
>>> - .read_iter = seq_read_iter,
>>
>> I doubt this patch applies to Linux v5.8-rc, this is how debug_ops is
>> defined in Linux v5.8-rc5,
>>
>
> I realize your patch is against linux-next, which is ahead of both
> linux-block and mainline tree. So this patch does not apply to
> linux-block tree, which is my upstream for bcache going to upstream.
>
> I suggest to generate the patch against latest mainline kernel, or
> linux-block branch for next merge window (for 5.9 it is branch
> remotes/origin/for-5.9/drivers).
>
I've sent a new patch against latest mainline kernel. Thanks.
>
>> 196 static const struct file_operations debug_ops = {
>> 197 .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> 198 .open = debug_seq_open,
>> 199 .read = seq_read,
>> 200 .release = single_release
>> 201 };
>>
>>> - .release = single_release
>>> -};
>>> +DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE(debug);
>>>
>>> void __init closure_debug_init(void)
>>> {
>>> @@ -209,7 +199,7 @@ void __init closure_debug_init(void)
>>> * about this.
>>> */
>>> closure_debug = debugfs_create_file(
>>> - "closures", 0400, bcache_debug, NULL, &debug_ops);
>>> + "closures", 0400, bcache_debug, NULL, &debug_fops);
>>> }
>>> #endif
>>
>> Do you test your change with upstream kernel ? Or at least you should
>> try to apply and compile the patch with latest upstream kernel.
>
> I withdraw the above wrong word, the -next tag in patch subject was
> overlooked by me. Next time I will try to avoid such mistake.
>
> Coly Li
>
>
> .
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-17 14:22    [W:0.050 / U:0.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site