On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 04:46:07PM -0600, Timur Tabi wrote:
> debugfs_create_blob() is given the size of the blob, so use it to
> also set the size of the dentry. For example, efi=debug previously
> showed
>
> -r-------- 1 root root 0 Feb 7 13:30 boot_services_code0
> -r-------- 1 root root 0 Feb 7 13:30 boot_services_code1
> -r-------- 1 root root 0 Feb 7 13:30 boot_services_data0
> -r-------- 1 root root 0 Feb 7 13:30 boot_services_data1
> -r-------- 1 root root 0 Feb 7 13:30 boot_services_data2
> -r-------- 1 root root 0 Feb 7 13:30 boot_services_data3
> -r-------- 1 root root 0 Feb 7 13:30 boot_services_data4
>
> but with this patch it shows
>
> -r-------- 1 root root 12783616 Feb 7 13:26 boot_services_code0
> -r-------- 1 root root 262144 Feb 7 13:26 boot_services_code1
> -r-------- 1 root root 41705472 Feb 7 13:26 boot_services_data0
> -r-------- 1 root root 23187456 Feb 7 13:26 boot_services_data1
> -r-------- 1 root root 110645248 Feb 7 13:26 boot_services_data2
> -r-------- 1 root root 1048576 Feb 7 13:26 boot_services_data3
> -r-------- 1 root root 4096 Feb 7 13:26 boot_services_data4
>
> Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi <ttabi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/debugfs/file.c | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/debugfs/file.c b/fs/debugfs/file.c
> index c6f4a9a98b85..848deff11b7e 100644
> --- a/fs/debugfs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/debugfs/file.c
> @@ -1152,7 +1152,14 @@ struct dentry *debugfs_create_blob(const char *name, umode_t mode,
> struct dentry *parent,
> struct debugfs_blob_wrapper *blob)
> {
> - return debugfs_create_file_unsafe(name, mode & 0644, parent, blob, &fops_blob);
> + struct dentry *dentry;
> +
> + dentry = debugfs_create_file_unsafe(name, mode & 0644, parent, blob, &fops_blob);
> + if (!IS_ERR(dentry))
> + i_size_write(d_inode(dentry), blob->size);
> +
> + return dentry;
> +
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(debugfs_create_blob);
>
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Hi,
This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.
You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:
- This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you
did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version.
Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what
needs to be done here to properly describe this.
If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.
thanks,
greg k-h's patch email bot
