Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6A7C65C30 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2018 12:23:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEFC221486 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2018 12:23:13 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CEFC221486 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lip6.fr Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727837AbeJFT0I (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Oct 2018 15:26:08 -0400 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:18192 "EHLO mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727491AbeJFT0I (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Oct 2018 15:26:08 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,348,1534802400"; d="scan'208";a="349873074" Received: from 89-157-201-244.rev.numericable.fr (HELO hadrien) ([89.157.201.244]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Oct 2018 14:22:58 +0200 Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:22:58 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: Kalle Valo cc: Julia Lawall , YueHaibing , Maya Erez , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, wil6210@qti.qualcomm.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] wil6210: fix debugfs_simple_attr.cocci warnings In-Reply-To: <87pnwnff65.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Message-ID: References: <1538737646-118337-1-git-send-email-yuehaibing@huawei.com> <877eiw1wol.fsf@codeaurora.org> <87pnwnff65.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 6 Oct 2018, Kalle Valo wrote: > Julia Lawall writes: > > > On Fri, 5 Oct 2018, Kalle Valo wrote: > > > >> YueHaibing writes: > >> > >> > Use DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE rather than DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE > >> > for debugfs files. > >> > > >> > Semantic patch information: > >> > Rationale: DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE + debugfs_create_file() > >> > imposes some significant overhead as compared to > >> > DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE + debugfs_create_file_unsafe(). > >> > > >> > Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci > >> > >> Just out of curiosity, what kind of overhead are we talking about here? > > > > The log message on the commit introducing the semantic patch says the > > following: > > > > In order to protect against file removal races, debugfs files created via > > debugfs_create_file() now get wrapped by a struct file_operations at their > > opening. > > > > If the original struct file_operations are known to be safe against removal > > races by themselves already, the proxy creation may be bypassed by creating > > the files through debugfs_create_file_unsafe(). > > > > In order to help debugfs users who use the common > > DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE() + debugfs_create_file() > > idiom to transition to removal safe struct file_operations, the helper > > macro DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE() has been introduced. > > > > Thus, the preferred strategy is to use > > DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE() + debugfs_create_file_unsafe() > > now. > > I admit that I didn't have time to investigate this is detail but I'm > still not understanding where is that "significant overhead" coming from > and how big of overhead are we talking about? I guess it has something > to do with full_proxy_open() vs open_proxy_open()? > > Not that I'm against this patch, just curious when I see someone > claiming "significant overhead" which is not obvious for me. The message with the semantic patch doesn't really talk about significant overhead. Maybe YueHaibing can discuss with the person who proposed the semantic patch what the actual issue is, and when the proposed change is actually applicable. julia > > -- > Kalle Valo >