From: zhuguangqing <[email protected]>
After commit 00ee22c28915 (PM / wakeup: Use seq_open()
to show wakeup stats), print_wakeup_source_stats(m, &deleted_ws)
is deleted in function wakeup_sources_stats_seq_show().
Because deleted_ws is one of wakeup sources, so it should
also be showed. This patch add it to the end of all other
wakeup sources.
Signed-off-by: zhuguangqing <[email protected]>
---
drivers/base/power/wakeup.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
index 5817b51d2b15..29e9434ccaaa 100644
--- a/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
+++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
@@ -1071,6 +1071,9 @@ static void *wakeup_sources_stats_seq_next(struct seq_file *m,
break;
}
+ if (&ws->entry == &wakeup_sources)
+ print_wakeup_source_stats(m, &deleted_ws);
+
return next_ws;
}
--
2.17.1
On Monday, October 21, 2019 10:51:40 AM CET [email protected] wrote:
> From: zhuguangqing <[email protected]>
>
> After commit 00ee22c28915 (PM / wakeup: Use seq_open()
> to show wakeup stats), print_wakeup_source_stats(m, &deleted_ws)
> is deleted in function wakeup_sources_stats_seq_show().
>
> Because deleted_ws is one of wakeup sources, so it should
> also be showed. This patch add it to the end of all other
> wakeup sources.
>
> Signed-off-by: zhuguangqing <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/base/power/wakeup.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
> index 5817b51d2b15..29e9434ccaaa 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
> @@ -1071,6 +1071,9 @@ static void *wakeup_sources_stats_seq_next(struct seq_file *m,
> break;
> }
>
> + if (&ws->entry == &wakeup_sources)
> + print_wakeup_source_stats(m, &deleted_ws);
> +
That would be when NULL is about to be returned, right?
Why not to check for !next_ws instead, then?
Moreover, why to call print_wakeup_source_stats() directly instead of returning
&deleted_ws?
Also it looks like you need a similar change in wakeup_sources_stats_seq_start(),
in case n is greater than the number of list entries, don't you?
> return next_ws;
> }
>
>
Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> 于2019年11月8日周五 下午7:34写道：
>
> On Monday, October 21, 2019 10:51:40 AM CET [email protected] wrote:
> > From: zhuguangqing <[email protected]>
> >
> > After commit 00ee22c28915 (PM / wakeup: Use seq_open()
> > to show wakeup stats), print_wakeup_source_stats(m, &deleted_ws)
> > is deleted in function wakeup_sources_stats_seq_show().
> >
> > Because deleted_ws is one of wakeup sources, so it should
> > also be showed. This patch add it to the end of all other
> > wakeup sources.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: zhuguangqing <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/base/power/wakeup.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
> > index 5817b51d2b15..29e9434ccaaa 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
> > @@ -1071,6 +1071,9 @@ static void *wakeup_sources_stats_seq_next(struct seq_file *m,
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > + if (&ws->entry == &wakeup_sources)
> > + print_wakeup_source_stats(m, &deleted_ws);
> > +
>
> That would be when NULL is about to be returned, right?
>
> Why not to check for !next_ws instead, then?
>
Yes, that would be when NULL is about to be returned, so check for
!next_ws instead is ok,
and it's more suitable.
> Moreover, why to call print_wakeup_source_stats() directly instead of returning
> &deleted_ws?
>
> Also it looks like you need a similar change in wakeup_sources_stats_seq_start(),
> in case n is greater than the number of list entries, don't you?
>
There are three reasons that I think calling
print_wakeup_source_stats() directly is better.
1, Although deleted_ws is a wakeup_source, it is not in
LIST_HEAD(wakeup_sources), it's
a special wakeup_source. The intial design (before commit
00ee22c28915) is also using two
seperated print_wakeup_source_stats() for LIST_HEAD(wakeup_sources)
and deleted_ws.
2, If returning &deleted_ws, then wakeup_sources_stats_seq_show() and
wakeup_sources_stats_seq_next() will run one more time.
3, If ++(*pos); in wakeup_sources_stats_seq_next() runs one more time, then n in
wakeup_sources_stats_seq_start() may be greater than the number of list entries,
and it needs some more change.
Thanks for your comments.
> > return next_ws;
> > }
> >
> >
>
>
>
>