On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 09:14:26PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 09:10:20PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 11:54:47AM -0800, Jithu Joseph wrote: > > > Note to Maintainers: > > > Requesting x86 Maintainers to take a look at patch01 as it > > > touches arch/x86 portion of the kernel. Also would like to guide them > > > to patch07 which sets up hotplug notifiers and creates kthreads. > > > > > > Patch 2/10 - Adds Documentation. Requesting Documentation maintainer to review it. > > > > > > Requesting Greg KH to review the sysfs changes added by patch08. > > > > "RFC" means you are not comfortable submitting the changes yet, so you > > don't need my review at this point in time. Become confident in your > > changes before asking for others to review the code please. > > Hint, it needs work, sysfs_emit() for one thing, lack of reference > counting on your cpu objects is another... Greg, Thanks for the comments. They triggered a bunch of internal re-thinking of the interface. One idea that has some traction (Credit/Blame: Dan Williams) is to: 1) Don't put anything in /sys/devices/system/cpu/* 2) Driver creates some info/control files in its own corner of /sys/devices/.../ifs 3) No per-cpu files ... run a test with: # echo ${cpu} > /sys/devices/.../ifs/run_test 4) No test result files. When tests complete they report using uevents Using uevent to report means that we can easily have mutiple parts to the result (pass/fail/incomplete status, as well as diagnostic details about the reason for the failure, or why the test was not completed). This seems a novel use of uevent ... is it OK, or is is abuse? Thanks -Tony