On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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...) Hmmm. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744012 suggests that irqbalance might be reading these files. > Want me to redo this in a way that is acceptable (i.e. remove the > existing code at the same time?) -- 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
