On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:45 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:41:59AM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:40 AM Jessica Yu <jeyu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >No. There are definitely not all modules. I have a builtin sha256_generic, > > > >but I can't find him in the /sys/module. > > > > > > Yeah, you'll only find builtin modules under /sys/module/ if it has any module > > > parameters, otherwise you won't find it there. As Masahiro already mentioned, > > > if a builtin module has any parameters, they would be accessible under /sys/module/. > > > > Could we please change that and add the sysfs entry regardless of > > what's being discussed here? Not having the entry there simply because > > we don't have parameters for that module always annoyed me. What is the benefit compared to wasting some memory for the directory? > > What is the sysfs directory going to show? Will it just be empty? > > Feel free to send a patch for this, but from what I remember, it wasn't > the easiest thing to do for some reason. But given that the code was > implemented before git was, I can't quite remember. I am pretty sure we allow empty attribute groups, so it is probbaly as simple as removing "If (!params) return 0;" form module_param_sysfs_setup() and making sure we always create "parameters" group instead of doing it on first visible parameter in add_sysfs_param(). I suppose we no longer want to skip over parameters that are not readable nor writable either? Thanks. -- Dmitry
