From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fam Zheng Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] gendisk: Generate uevent after attribute available Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 09:01:13 +0800 Message-ID: <20160701010113.GB10122@ad.usersys.redhat.com> References: <20160630015953.6888-1-famz@redhat.com> <20160630062442.GA19761@infradead.org> <20160630063554.GE23296@ad.usersys.redhat.com> <20160630063839.GA17205@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160630063839.GA17205@infradead.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Keith Busch , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Shaohua Li , Nitin Gupta , famz@redhat.com, Jiri Kosina , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, "Ed L. Cashin" , Jens Axboe , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, David Woodhouse , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Minchan Kim , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Brian Norris , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Wed, 06/29 23:38, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 02:35:54PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > > also more code and less flexible IMO. For example, we need at least two > > variants, for attribute_group and device_attribute separately, right? > > Yes, or maybe just a calling convention that just passes both. OK, I can look into that, but I'm not sure about the error handling. Currently add_disk returns void, do you have any plan on that too? should I change it in v3 (to at least return the attribute creation failure)? Fam From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 09:01:13 +0800 From: Fam Zheng To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Jens Axboe , "Ed L. Cashin" , Jiri Kosina , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Minchan Kim , Nitin Gupta , Sergey Senozhatsky , Shaohua Li , Ulf Hansson , David Woodhouse , Brian Norris , Keith Busch , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, famz@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] gendisk: Generate uevent after attribute available Message-ID: <20160701010113.GB10122@ad.usersys.redhat.com> References: <20160630015953.6888-1-famz@redhat.com> <20160630062442.GA19761@infradead.org> <20160630063554.GE23296@ad.usersys.redhat.com> <20160630063839.GA17205@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20160630063839.GA17205@infradead.org> List-ID: On Wed, 06/29 23:38, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 02:35:54PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > > also more code and less flexible IMO. For example, we need at least two > > variants, for attribute_group and device_attribute separately, right? > > Yes, or maybe just a calling convention that just passes both. OK, I can look into that, but I'm not sure about the error handling. Currently add_disk returns void, do you have any plan on that too? should I change it in v3 (to at least return the attribute creation failure)? Fam From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: famz@redhat.com (Fam Zheng) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 09:01:13 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v2 00/12] gendisk: Generate uevent after attribute available In-Reply-To: <20160630063839.GA17205@infradead.org> References: <20160630015953.6888-1-famz@redhat.com> <20160630062442.GA19761@infradead.org> <20160630063554.GE23296@ad.usersys.redhat.com> <20160630063839.GA17205@infradead.org> Message-ID: <20160701010113.GB10122@ad.usersys.redhat.com> On Wed, 06/29 23:38, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016@02:35:54PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > > also more code and less flexible IMO. For example, we need at least two > > variants, for attribute_group and device_attribute separately, right? > > Yes, or maybe just a calling convention that just passes both. OK, I can look into that, but I'm not sure about the error handling. Currently add_disk returns void, do you have any plan on that too? should I change it in v3 (to at least return the attribute creation failure)? Fam