Dan Williams wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > [..] > > > > > > Hey Greg, > > > > > > I wanted to follow up on this and see if you are able to provide more > > > details for reproducing or if you are able to look into it? > > > > Last I tried this, it still crashed and would not boot either on my > > laptop or my workstation. I don't know how it is working properly for > > you, what systems have you tried it on? > > > > I'm not going to be able to look at this for many weeks due to > > conference stuff, so if you want to take the series and test it and > > hopefully catch my error, that would be great, I'd love to move forward > > and get this merged someday. > > I mentioned to Lukas that I was working on a "sysfs group visibility" > patch and he pointed me to this thread. I will note that I tried to make > the "hide group if all attributes are invisible" approach work, but > reverted to a "new is_group_visible() callback" approach. I did read > through the thread and try to improve the argument in the changelog > accordingly. > > I do admit to liking the cleanliness (not touching 'struct > attribute_group') of the "hide if no visible attribute" approch, but see > the criticism of that alternative below, and let me know if it is > convincing. I tested it locally with the following hack to make the > group disappear every other sysfs_update_group() event: Hey Greg, Ignore this version: --- From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:20:39 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] sysfs: Introduce is_group_visible() for attribute_groups --- I am going back to your approach without a new callback, and some fixups to avoid unintended directory removal. I will post that shortly with its consumer.
