From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755320Ab0AEXWQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jan 2010 18:22:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750756Ab0AEXWO (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jan 2010 18:22:14 -0500 Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:43552 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754564Ab0AEXV6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jan 2010 18:21:58 -0500 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:20:53 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Andi Kleen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [5/12] SYSFS: Add attribute array to sysdev classes Message-ID: <20100105232053.GB815@kroah.com> References: <201001051247.104464547@firstfloor.org> <20100105114802.8240CB17C2@basil.firstfloor.org> <20100105145433.GF11732@kroah.com> <20100105162451.GF1778@basil.fritz.box> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100105162451.GF1778@basil.fritz.box> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 05:24:51PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 06:54:33AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 12:48:02PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > > Add a attribute array that is automatically registered and unregistered > > > to struct sysdev_class. This is similar to what struct class has. > > > > > > A lot of drivers add list of attributes, so it's better to do > > > this easily in the common sysdev layer. > > > > > > This adds a new field to struct sysdev_class. I audited the > > > whole tree and there are no dynamically allocated sysdev classes, > > > so this is fully compatible. > > > > I agree, this should be done, but can you use an attribute group > > instead, like the driver core does? That way you don't need the new > > function that you created that duplicates that logic :) > > Actually the attributes use own loops for this too. > > In theory could add a group in the middle, but it would greatly complicate > the driver interface for little gain. > > In theory the low loops could be shared between the group code > and sysfs_create_files(), but I'm not sure it's really worth > it because it's just a few lines of code (which are currently > duplicated in multiple places anyways, so it's a net-win) > > You still want me to attempt that? For now, nah, that's ok, I'll take this as-is. But if you want to make this change in the future, feel free to. thanks, greg k-h