From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S935365AbcI3BLy (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:11:54 -0400
Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.220.50]:35266 "EHLO
        mail-pa0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1755519AbcI3BLr (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:11:47 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dump: Make ptdump debugfs a separate option
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
References: <20160929213257.30505-1-labbott@redhat.com>
 <20160929213257.30505-2-labbott@redhat.com> <20160930001339.GA4369@remoulade>
 <e17189c7-54e0-f0a1-2b16-36f486111c4c@redhat.com>
 <20160930004852.GC4369@remoulade>
Cc: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        David Brown <david.brown@linaro.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
From: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <cf3b51d5-f5ad-9fc3-7bea-7e7a5a9798c5@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:11:44 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160930004852.GC4369@remoulade>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 09/29/2016 05:48 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 05:31:09PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> On 09/29/2016 05:13 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 02:32:55PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>>> +int ptdump_register(struct ptdump_info *info, const char *name)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	ptdump_initialize(info);
>>>> +	return ptdump_debugfs_create(info, name);
>>>> }
>>>
>>> It feels like a layering violation to have the core ptdump code call the
>>> debugfs ptdump code. Is there some reason this has to live here?
>>
>> Which 'this' are you referring to here? Are you suggesting moving
>> the ptdump_register elsewhere or moving the debugfs create elsewhere?
>
> Sorry, I should have worded that better.
>
> I meant moving ptdump_register into ptdump_debugfs.c, perhaps renamed to make it
> clear it's debugfs-specific.
>
> We could instead update existing users to call ptdump_debugfs_create()
> directly, and have that call ptdump_initialize(), which could itself become a
> staic inline in a header.

Ah okay, I see what you are suggesting. ptdump_initialize should still
happen regardless of debugfs status though so I guess 
ptdump_debugfs_create would just get turned into just ptdump_initialize
which seems a little unclear. I'll come up with some other shed 
colors^W^Wfunction names.

Thanks,
Laura