On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:06:05AM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> On 7/9/20 11:18 PM, Tony Asleson wrote:
> > Hi Bartlomiej,
> >
> > On 6/24/20 5:35 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> >> The root source of problem is that libata transport uses different
> >> naming scheme for ->tdev devices (please see dev_set_name() in
> >> ata_t{dev,link,port}_add()) than libata core for its logging
> >> functionality (ata_{dev,link,port}_printk()).
> >>
> >> Since libata transport is part of sysfs ABI we should be careful
> >> to not break it so one idea for solving the issue is to convert
> >> ata_t{dev,link,port}_add() to use libata logging naming scheme and
> >> at the same time add sysfs symlinks for the old libata transport
> >> naming scheme.
Given the age of the current implementation, what suddenly broke that
requires this to change at this point in time?
> >
> > I tried doing as you suggested. I've included what I've done so far. I
> > haven't been able to get all the needed parts for the symlinks to
> > maintain compatibility.
> >
> > The /sys/class/.. seems OK, eg.
> >
> > $ ls -x -w 70 /sys/class/ata_[dl]*
> > /sys/class/ata_device:
> > ata1.00 ata2.00 ata3.00 ata4.00 ata5.00 ata6.00 ata7.00
> > ata7.01 ata8.00 ata8.01 dev1.0 dev2.0 dev3.0 dev4.0
> > dev5.0 dev6.0 dev7.0 dev7.1 dev8.0 dev8.1
> >
> > /sys/class/ata_link:
> > ata1 ata2 ata3 ata4 ata5 ata6 ata7 ata8 link1 link2
> > link3 link4 link5 link6 link7 link8
A link class? Ick ick ick.
> > but the implementation is a hack, see device.h, core.c changes. There
> > must be a better way?
> >
> > Also I'm missing part of the full path, eg.
> >
> > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:01.1/ata7/link7/dev7.0/ata_device/dev7.0/gscr
> >
> > becomes
> >
> > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:01.1/ata7/ata7/ata7.01/ata_device/ata7.01/gscr
> >
> > but the compatibility symlinks added only get me to
> >
> > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:01.1/ata7/link7/dev7.0/ata_device/
> >
> > I haven't found the right spot to get the last symlink included.
> >
> > If you or anyone else has suggestions to correct the incomplete symlink
> > and/or correct the implementation to set the
> > /sys/class/ata_device it would be greatly appreciated.
I can't understand what you are trying to do here.
What do you want to represent in sysfs with a symlink that you can't
just have in a single sysfs file like "name" or "new_name" or
"name_because_we_didnt_think_about_this_10_years_ago" that shows you the
other "name" that you are trying to look up here?
Why abuse symlinks like this at all?
And no, the device.h and core.c changes aren't ok :)
thanks,
greg k-h
