On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 05:40:02PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > The PCI MSI sysfs code is a mess with kobjects for things that don't > > really need to be kobjects. This patch creates attributes dynamically > > for the MSI interrupts instead of using kobjects. > > > > Note, this does not delete the existing sysfs MSI code, but puts the > > attributes under a "msi_irqs_2" directory for testing / example. > > > > Also note, this removes a directory from the current MSI interrupt sysfs > > code: > > > > old MSI kobjects: > > pci_device > > └── msi_irqs > > └── 40 > > └── mode > > > > new MSI attributes: > > pci_device > > └── msi_irqs_2 > > └── 40 > > > > As there was only one file "mode" with the kobject model, the interrupt > > number is now a file that returns the "mode" of the interrupt (msi vs. > > msix). > > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > Bjorn, I can make up a patch that rips out the existing kobject code > > here, but I figured this patch would make things easier to follow > > instead of having to dig through the removed logic at the same time. > > > > I'll clean up the error handling path for the create attribute logic as > > well, this was just a proof of concept that this could be done. > > > > Do you think that anyone cares about the current mode files in sysfs to > > move things in this manner? > > I like this a lot better than trying to fix all the holes in the > current kobject code. Great. > I have no idea who, if anybody, cares about the "mode" files. I > assume there's a way to create the "mode" files with attributes, too? > If so, we could replicate the existing structure with one patch, and > simplify it with a second patch, so it would be easier to revert the > directory change while keeping the fix. No, we can't create a 2-level deep attribute at the moment, only one level, like the patch does. Based on Neil's comments, I think we should be fine with this as-is as no one is messing with these files directly (which implies that we could possibly just remove them entirely to save us the overall pain...) Want me to redo this in a way that is acceptable (i.e. remove the existing code at the same time?) thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
