On 08/17/2018 09:00 AM, hch@xxxxxx wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 03:44:57PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On Tue, 2018-08-14 at 17:39 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>> While I have considered having nvme_nvm_register_sysfs() returning a
>>> pointer I would then have to remove the 'static' declaration from the
>>> nvm_dev_attr_group_12/20.
>>> Which I didn't really like, either.
>>
>> Hmm ... I don't see why the static declaration would have to be removed from
>> nvm_dev_attr_group_12/20 if nvme_nvm_register_sysfs() would return a pointer?
>> Am I perhaps missing something?
>
> No, I think that would be the preferable approach IFF patching the global
> table of groups would be viable. I don't think it is, though - we can
> have both normal NVMe and LightNVM devices in the same system, so we
> can't just patch it over.
>
> So we'll need three different attribut group arrays:
>
> const struct attribute_group *nvme_ns_id_attr_groups[] = {
> &nvme_ns_id_attr_group,
> NULL,
> };
>
> const struct attribute_group *lightnvm12_ns_id_attr_groups[] = {
> &nvme_ns_id_attr_group,
> &nvm_dev_attr_group_12,
> NULL,
> };
>
> const struct attribute_group *lightnvm20_ns_id_attr_groups[] = {
> &nvme_ns_id_attr_group,
> &nvm_dev_attr_group_20,
> NULL,
> };
>
> and a function to select which one to use.
>
Yeah, I figured the same thing.
I'll be redoing the patchset.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
