On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 12:06:09AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > The "pointless" penalty will go away once we convert all instances, and > > really, it's just one pointer check, sysfs files should NOT be a hot > > path for anything real, and one more pointer check should be cached and > > not measurable compared to the real logic behind the binary data coming > > from the hardware/kernel, right? > > > > sysfs is NOT tuned for speed at all, so adding more checks like this > > should be fine. > > Hey, when I duplicated the method to convert sysfs over to a proper > seq_file based approach that avoids buffer overflows you basically > came up with the same line that Alexei had here. I did? Sorry about that, I don't remember that. > And that is a lot > more useful than constification. Not that I mind the latter, but it > would be better if it could be done without leaving both variants > in for long. I agree, we should get the read_new stuff out in the next kernel cycle I hope. As for seq_file for sysfs, is that for binary attributes only, or for all? I can't recall that at all. thanks, greg k-h
