From: Yongqiang Liu <[email protected]>
Use DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE macro to simplify the code.
Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Liu <[email protected]>
---
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);
-}
-
-static const struct file_operations debug_ops = {
- .owner = THIS_MODULE,
- .open = debug_seq_open,
- .read_iter = seq_read_iter,
- .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
--
2.17.1
On 2020/7/16 17:03, Qinglang Miao wrote:
> From: Yongqiang Liu <[email protected]>
>
Hi Qianlang and Yongqiang,
> Use DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE macro to simplify the code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Liu <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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.
> -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,
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.
Thanks.
Coly Li
On 2020/7/16 17:54, Coly Li wrote:
> On 2020/7/16 17:03, Qinglang Miao wrote:
>> From: Yongqiang Liu <[email protected]>
>>
>
> Hi Qianlang and Yongqiang,
>
>> Use DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE macro to simplify the code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Liu <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> 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.
>
>> -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).
> 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
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 <[email protected]>
>>>
>>
>> Hi Qianlang and Yongqiang,
>>
>>> Use DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE macro to simplify the code.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Liu <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> 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.I've noticed this diffrence and I'm testing bcache on a new qemu
environment with this patch applied.
>
>>
>>> -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).
>
Yes you're right, this patch is based on linux-next with commit
<4d4901c6d7>. Sorry I didn't mention it in commit log.
>
>> 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
>
>
> .
>
I will send a new patch based on 5.9 mainline after more detailed
analysis and test.
Thanks.
Qinglang
.
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 <[email protected]>
>>>
>>
>> Hi Qianlang and Yongqiang,
>>
>>> Use DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE macro to simplify the code.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Liu <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> 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
>
>
> .
>