Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:20:28 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v25 01/10] drivers/base: refactor cpu.c to use .is_visible() | From | Eric DeVolder <> |
| |
On 7/21/23 11:32, Eric DeVolder wrote: > > > On 7/3/23 11:53, Eric DeVolder wrote: >> >> >> On 7/3/23 08:05, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 03:21:10PM -0400, Eric DeVolder wrote: >>>> - the function body of the callback functions are now wrapped with >>>> IS_ENABLED(); as the callback function must exist now that the >>>> attribute is always compiled-in (though not necessarily visible). >>> >>> Why do you need to do this last thing? Is it a code savings goal? Or >>> something else? The file will not be present in the system if the >>> option is not enabled, so it should be safe to not do this unless you >>> feel it's necessary for some reason? >> >> To accommodate the request, all DEVICE_ATTR() must be unconditionally present in this file. The >> DEVICE_ATTR() requires the .show() callback. As the callback is referenced from a data structure, >> the callback has to be present for link. All the callbacks for these attributes are in this file. >> >> I have two basic choices for gutting the function body if the config feature is not enabled. I can >> either use #ifdef or IS_ENABLED(). Thomas has made it clear I need to use IS_ENABLED(). I can >> certainly use #ifdef (which is what I did in v24). >> >>> >>> Not doing this would make the diff easier to read :) >> >> I agree this is messy. I'm not really sure what this request/effort achieves as these attributes >> are not strongly related (unlike cacheinfo) and the way the file was before results in less code. >> >> At any rate, please indicate if you'd rather I use #ifdef. >> Thanks for your time! >> eric >> >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> greg k-h > > Hi Greg, > I was wondering if you might weigh-in so that I can proceed. > > I think there are three options on the table: > - use #ifdef to comment out these function bodies, which keeps the diff much more readable > - use IS_ENABLED() as Thomas has requested I do, but makes the diff more difficult to read > - remove this refactor altogether, perhaps post-poning until after this crash hotplug series merges, > as this refactor is largely unrelated to crash hotplug. > > Thank you for your time on this topic! > eric
Hi Greg, If you have an opinion on how to proceed, please provide. Thanks, eric
| |