From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: greg@kroah.com (Greg KH) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 19:24:09 +0200 Subject: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH] PCI/IOV: Move sysfs SR-IOV functions to iov.c In-Reply-To: <20190810171525.GG221706@google.com> References: <20190809195721.34237-1-skunberg.kelsey@gmail.com> <20190810071719.GA16356@kroah.com> <20190810171525.GG221706@google.com> Message-ID: <20190810172409.GB4482@kroah.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <20190810172409.pjROcLCgKBjk1eD965W7iyc2GTVBANl3HnQGhk2TVp4@z> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 12:15:25PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 09:17:19AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 01:57:21PM -0600, Kelsey Skunberg wrote: > > > +static struct device_attribute sriov_totalvfs_attr = __ATTR_RO(sriov_totalvfs); > > > > DEVICE_ATTR_RO() please. This is a device attribute, not a "raw" > > kobject attribute. > > This patch is just a move; here's the source of the line above: > > > > -static struct device_attribute sriov_totalvfs_attr = __ATTR_RO(sriov_totalvfs); > > I certainly support using DEVICE_ATTR_RO() instead of __ATTR_RO(), but > that should be down with a separate patch so it's not buried in what > is otherwise a simple move. > > > > +static struct device_attribute sriov_numvfs_attr = > > > + __ATTR(sriov_numvfs, (S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR | S_IWGRP), > > > + sriov_numvfs_show, sriov_numvfs_store); > > > +static struct device_attribute sriov_offset_attr = __ATTR_RO(sriov_offset); > > > +static struct device_attribute sriov_stride_attr = __ATTR_RO(sriov_stride); > > > +static struct device_attribute sriov_vf_device_attr = > > > + __ATTR_RO(sriov_vf_device); > > > +static struct device_attribute sriov_drivers_autoprobe_attr = > > > + __ATTR(sriov_drivers_autoprobe, (S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR | S_IWGRP), > > > + sriov_drivers_autoprobe_show, > > > + sriov_drivers_autoprobe_store); > > > > Same for all of these, they should use DEVICE_ATTR* macros. > > > > And why the odd permissions on 2 of these files? Are you sure about > > that? > > Same for these. It'd be nice to fix them (and similar cases in > pci-sysfs.c, rpadlpar_sysfs.c, sgi_hotplug.c, slot.c) but in a > separate patch. > > I think Kelsey did the right thing here by not mixing unrelated fixes > in with the code move. A couple additional patches to change the > __ATTR() uses and the permissions (git grep "\ possibilities) would be icing on the cake, but getting the SR-IOV > code all together is an improvement by itself. Ah, ok, that makes more sense. As long as this is patch 1/X, I'm fine with it :) thanks, greg k-h