On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:54:45AM +0800, Yanmin Zhang wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 14:20 +0200, Valentin, Eduardo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> > <hmh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 05 Mar 2012, ShuoX Liu wrote:
> > >> @@ -45,6 +46,7 @@ total 0
> > >> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state1:
> > >> total 0
> > >> -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Feb 8 10:42 desc
> > >> +-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Feb 8 10:42 disable
> > >> -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Feb 8 10:42 latency
> > >> -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Feb 8 10:42 name
> > >> -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Feb 8 10:42 power
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c b/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c
> > >> index 3fe41fe..1eae29a 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c
> > >> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c
> > >> @@ -222,6 +222,9 @@ struct cpuidle_state_attr {
> > >> #define define_one_state_ro(_name, show) \
> > >> static struct cpuidle_state_attr attr_##_name = __ATTR(_name, 0444,
> > >> show, NULL)
> > >>
> > >> +#define define_one_state_rw(_name, show, store) \
> > >> +static struct cpuidle_state_attr attr_##_name = __ATTR(_name, 0644,
> > >> show, store)
> > >> +
> > >> #define define_show_state_function(_name) \
> > >> static ssize_t show_state_##_name(struct cpuidle_state *state, \
> > >> struct cpuidle_state_usage *state_usage, char *buf) \
> > >> @@ -229,6 +232,19 @@ static ssize_t show_state_##_name(struct
> > >> cpuidle_state *state, \
> > >> return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", state->_name);\
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> +#define define_store_state_function(_name) \
> > >> +static ssize_t store_state_##_name(struct cpuidle_state *state, \
> > >> + const char *buf, size_t size) \
> > >> +{ \
> > >> + int value; \
> > >> + sscanf(buf, "%d", &value); \
> > >> + if (value) \
> > >> + state->disable = 1; \
> > >> + else \
> > >> + state->disable = 0; \
> > >> + return size; \
> > >> +}
> > >
> > > Isn't this missing a check for capabilities? Disabling cpuidle states is
> > > not something random Joe (and IMHO that does mean random capability-
> > > restricted Joe root) should be doing...
> > >
> > > Also, maybe it would be best to use one of the lib helpers to parse that
> > > value, so that it will be less annoying to userspace (trim blanks, complain
> > > if there is trailing junk after trimming, etc)?
> >
> > I may be jumping the thread in the middle but, if it is for debug
> > purposes, as states the subject, shouldn't this entry go to debugfs
> > instead of sysfs? I know cpuidle has all the infrastructure there to
> > simply add another sysfs entry, but if the intent is to create a debug
> > capability, then I'd say it fits under debugfs instead. Adding Greg
> > KH here, as I suppose he may have strong opinion on using sysfs for
> > debugging.
> Thanks for the comments.
>
> IMHO, all entries under cpuidle directory are for debug purpose. End users
> shouldn't care about them. If we rewrite codes around all the entries, I strongly
> agree that we need move them to debugfs.
I totally agree, they all need to move out of sysfs.
> Here, we just add a new entry under same directory. If we create it under debugfs,
> we need create the similar directory tree, which is a duplicate effort. In addition,
> users might be confused that why we separate the entries under sysfs and debugfs.
They should all be moved there, that will remove any confusion :)
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
