Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 07:03:55PM CET, alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:22:30 +0100
>Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 05:08:24PM CET, parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >
>> >+static ssize_t alias_show(struct device *device,
>> >+ struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
>> >+{
>> >+ struct mdev_device *dev = mdev_from_dev(device);
>> >+
>> >+ if (!dev->alias)
>> >+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> >+
>> >+ return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", dev->alias);
>> >+}
>> >+static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(alias);
>>
>> I wonder, rather than adding another sysfs file, why the alias can't be
>> simply a symlink to the aliased mdev directory?
>
>The user doesn't know the alias in advance, it seems problematic to
>assume an arbitrarily named link is the alias. Thanks,
Why the user have to know in advance?
>
>Alex
>
>> >+
>> > static const struct attribute *mdev_device_attrs[] = {
>> >+ &dev_attr_alias.attr,
>> > &dev_attr_remove.attr,
>> > NULL,
>> > };
>> >--
>> >2.19.2
>> >
>
