From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.zeus03.de (zeus03.de [194.117.254.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 825452EBBB7 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 2026 20:36:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785616566; cv=none; b=U59gngOjEQJM0eSigteruF0TipjEp/MdMCi7SrexhzZJItVesE7zN4ahkYHO/9jtsskpIT8zfWqyUkUIAL8Mk3jiI2k12qOD6JGf3AE5a0l52mm+NzQ4s6MuAVx8ZbC4+VuuHwfxXhxREKBf695MfSSlsvkLDhszKGRT26DVUdE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785616566; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yK22Stux9UPrvNWK2bBRclWpoSn3I5fVEKRb7fU0pyY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=oO8ZmW/9ZeAgl241omQDt646RxqaIT/CwB6gw411lehT3O0lplPaL88Z2CigeZnx0fdKB4AvRlRM9n3Y+ghsiShPL5v5VSazNVL7o7P80DjqwERXSd19vC+DD1ufFe+sF9X+932GJ/62PQg3QnLcH3VOb72EgTmkALkiP8muXjo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b=FSpTMlTl; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b="FSpTMlTl" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= sang-engineering.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=k1; bh=yK22 Stux9UPrvNWK2bBRclWpoSn3I5fVEKRb7fU0pyY=; b=FSpTMlTl0P7mVyi/2FDT i2CfEM1RnUHAuD3zhMWIK8NkV7+LZqdjmPtQdRSplo+IXqdGMAXPEOpYzm/VOHTm 9UYkjDKeuWTVZnQp8HYJyO80kLFweeOroehEaC7V8a3+PgfbInuO25XucOUndhQg Micq8yo77swx7FulBj8bNDBLy3HVU6gEO1uYXu9HqjeM10jgwcwPWYKUgrGOhlXk GirCKMhtfSntwAPWAlw2G2+2vq7mZu4b5mXZ0YkbXytxemvIr5UPXwbR13I76P/5 zKi3usFHTQqCaFAGlbC73LsxcCZKMA5zwLmBdPP1mp9c12JrFO0qlbTI88uzaUOq ww== Received: (qmail 2491325 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2026 22:36:02 +0200 Received: by mail.zeus03.de with ESMTPSA (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted, authenticated); 1 Aug 2026 22:36:02 +0200 X-UD-Smtp-Session: l3s3148p1@+17nQAJYvKkujnt8 Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2026 22:36:02 +0200 From: Wolfram Sang To: Cengiz Can Cc: Linus Walleij , Bartosz Golaszewski , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] gpio: sloppy-logic-analyzer: use debugfs_create_file() for buf_size and capture Message-ID: References: <20260730220258.358169-1-cengiz.can@canonical.com> <20260730220258.358169-3-cengiz.can@canonical.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="m4xUjN+nZ6XlrdFH" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260730220258.358169-3-cengiz.can@canonical.com> --m4xUjN+nZ6XlrdFH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 01:02:58AM +0300, Cengiz Can wrote: > The "buf_size" and "capture" debugfs files are created with > debugfs_create_file_unsafe() and DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE() fops. That is > safe on its own: debugfs_attr_read()/write() take a debugfs reference > themselves, so debugfs_remove_recursive() drains them on removal. >=20 > Now that "trigger" uses debugfs_create_file(), switch these two to the > same call so all three debugfs files in this driver are created uniformly. > This is a cosmetic change; the extra debugfs_file_get()/put() added by the > full_proxy wrapper is negligible. >=20 > Suggested-by: Wolfram Sang > Assisted-by: Claude:claude-opus-4.8 > Signed-off-by: Cengiz Can I'd squash the patches and keep the stable tag for the combined patch, but I'll leave this to the GPIO maintainers. Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang --m4xUjN+nZ6XlrdFH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEOZGx6rniZ1Gk92RdFA3kzBSgKbYFAmpuWLIACgkQFA3kzBSg KbYqtBAArSZGTU0TE6CqxvdXf+fY9WbViTUupwT/5+jihHKaXZDHZPgS9+oZ5ZiE 6dR4LwAU4HiWJan2WshypZlfaDBZwDo0mNL+IIFggK6vHMWBFGTL4PWsSzna3hKD rMwOK9+kjJaj8RrFP86fXQHq3RiWh5D7xtE1uO6Af3BXE/ami7XkSZ4E14I0WdTZ gYj937nnrWsdTLEV0FA1ivlU6Dq7zS7NoVpFnm/lQx7ZpXWDXz9jNifEfRUhV9/F 7WmW1GuAVFtG6HThe9x4mkRHHZpF++C3rUjEfcvMqJ9SeWaqCA5AC56IcZVs7BfT J+MuvQbcvYj7/6MrP/5xN6XBXWALeGCXgkyUddZW2BQ3B/JVbymRYMx/mhVtyNd8 uRLojVZhzIA7VDKXOdxQP5Kyax2lwXZ5MIyuUv0j/4kVc7GdrHEu/yYGH2uHqPjn +HGa5aJ0VilwqHAcPNCPnBlCj4hBVEMRDX57ftMAS+lYGKwpx6VEbooqdKdXrYSF C6txBLQtuFrUsxJrvH0slkg+SWuIf6mSudVokGoJjbaBLXRVQFv/4BdXvvjEWEDN KbYIEomVx6JIR2jCYLsoELa8rWAelj8ZZS6E9MstwqCZWFkD3U4Ko81pCGpZeJpC 07HnQxWbBx5TBCQP59C71v37dq5wIjvR1dpkbsX3+n7D6su074g= =5BTl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --m4xUjN+nZ6XlrdFH--