On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:18:11AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 02:29:37PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 01:44:46PM +0800, Zhenyu Wang wrote: > > > On 2023.01.10 13:49:57 -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:00:12AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote: > > > > > Using DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE macro with the debugfs_create_file() > > > > > function adds the overhead of introducing a proxy file operation > > > > > functions to wrap the original read/write inside file removal protection > > > > > functions. This adds significant overhead in terms of introducing and > > > > > managing the proxy factory file operations structure and function > > > > > wrapping at runtime. > > > > > As a replacement, a combination of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE macro paired > > > > > with debugfs_create_file_unsafe() is suggested to be used instead. The > > > > > DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE utilises debugfs_file_get() and > > > > > debugfs_file_put() wrappers to protect the original read and write > > > > > function calls for the debug attributes. There is no need for any > > > > > runtime proxy file operations to be managed by the debugfs core. > > > > > Following coccicheck make command helped identify this change: > > > > > > > > > > make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > I believe these 2 gvt cases could be done in one patch. > > > > But anyways, > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > for both patches... and will leave these 2 patches for gvt folks > > > > to apply. Unless they ack and I apply in the drm-intel along with the other ones. > > > > > > > > > > yeah, they're fine with me, feel free to apply them directly. > > > > > > Acked-by: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Unfortunately I got some conflicts when trying to apply on drm-intel-next. > > > > We probably need a new version, and probably through gvt branches it > > will be easier to handle conflicts if they appear. > > Hello Rodrigo, > Sure. I will send in a new version. I am current using linux-next git repo as my > remote origin [tag 20230113]. Are there any specific instruction/location from > where I should access the gvt branch? https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux.git but with the linux-next your patch is probably right for them. > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > thanks! > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c | 6 +++--- > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c > > > > > index 03f081c3d9a4..baccbf1761b7 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c > > > > > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int vgpu_status_get(void *data, u64 *val) > > > > > return 0; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n"); > > > > > +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n"); > > > > > > > > > > /** > > > > > * intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu - register debugfs entries for a vGPU > > > > > @@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ void intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu) > > > > > &vgpu_mmio_diff_fops); > > > > > debugfs_create_file_unsafe("scan_nonprivbb", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu, > > > > > &vgpu_scan_nonprivbb_fops); > > > > > - debugfs_create_file("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu, > > > > > - &vgpu_status_fops); > > > > > + debugfs_create_file_unsafe("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu, > > > > > + &vgpu_status_fops); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > /** > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.34.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
