On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 01:20:28PM -0500, Eric DeVolder wrote: > > > On 7/21/23 11:32, Eric DeVolder wrote: > > > > > > On 7/3/23 11:53, Eric DeVolder wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 7/3/23 08:05, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 03:21:10PM -0400, Eric DeVolder wrote: > > > > > - the function body of the callback functions are now wrapped with > > > > > IS_ENABLED(); as the callback function must exist now that the > > > > > attribute is always compiled-in (though not necessarily visible). > > > > > > > > Why do you need to do this last thing? Is it a code savings goal? Or > > > > something else? The file will not be present in the system if the > > > > option is not enabled, so it should be safe to not do this unless you > > > > feel it's necessary for some reason? > > > > > > To accommodate the request, all DEVICE_ATTR() must be > > > unconditionally present in this file. The DEVICE_ATTR() requires the > > > .show() callback. As the callback is referenced from a data > > > structure, the callback has to be present for link. All the > > > callbacks for these attributes are in this file. > > > > > > I have two basic choices for gutting the function body if the config > > > feature is not enabled. I can either use #ifdef or IS_ENABLED(). > > > Thomas has made it clear I need to use IS_ENABLED(). I can certainly > > > use #ifdef (which is what I did in v24). > > > > > > > > > > > Not doing this would make the diff easier to read :) > > > > > > I agree this is messy. I'm not really sure what this request/effort > > > achieves as these attributes are not strongly related (unlike > > > cacheinfo) and the way the file was before results in less code. > > > > > > At any rate, please indicate if you'd rather I use #ifdef. > > > Thanks for your time! > > > eric > > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > Hi Greg, > > I was wondering if you might weigh-in so that I can proceed. > > > > I think there are three options on the table: > > - use #ifdef to comment out these function bodies, which keeps the diff much more readable > > - use IS_ENABLED() as Thomas has requested I do, but makes the diff more difficult to read > > - remove this refactor altogether, perhaps post-poning until after this > > crash hotplug series merges, as this refactor is largely unrelated to > > crash hotplug. > > > > Thank you for your time on this topic! > > eric > > Hi Greg, > If you have an opinion on how to proceed, please provide. Sorry, totally swamped by "stuff". I don't know, use your judgement here and send a new version, don't wait for me to weigh in on design decisions for longer than a week. thanks, greg k-h
