On 12/30/19 2:29 AM, Jack Wang wrote:
+static struct kobj_type ktype = {
+ .sysfs_ops = &kobj_sysfs_ops,
+};
Can this data structure be declared 'const'?
+static ssize_t max_reconnect_attempts_show(struct device *dev,
+ struct device_attribute *attr,
+ char *page)
+{
+ struct rtrs_clt *clt;
+
+ clt = container_of(dev, struct rtrs_clt, dev);
If the above two statements would be combined into a single statement,
does the result still fit in 80 columns? If so, please combine these two
statements into a single statement.
+static ssize_t max_reconnect_attempts_store(struct device *dev,
+ struct device_attribute *attr,
+ const char *buf,
+ size_t count)
+{
+ struct rtrs_clt *clt;
+ int value;
+ int ret;
+
+ clt = container_of(dev, struct rtrs_clt, dev);
Same comment here and also for other uses of 'clt': how about combining
the declaration and initialization of 'clt' into a single line of code?
+static ssize_t mpath_policy_show(struct device *dev,
+ struct device_attribute *attr,
+ char *page)
+{
+ struct rtrs_clt *clt;
+
+ clt = container_of(dev, struct rtrs_clt, dev);
+
+ switch (clt->mp_policy) {
+ case MP_POLICY_RR:
+ return sprintf(page, "round-robin (RR: %d)\n", clt->mp_policy);
+ case MP_POLICY_MIN_INFLIGHT:
+ return sprintf(page, "min-inflight (MI: %d)\n", clt->mp_policy);
+ default:
+ return sprintf(page, "Unknown (%d)\n", clt->mp_policy);
+ }
+}
Is the above show function compatible with the sysfs one-value-per-file
rule?
+static struct kobj_attribute rtrs_clt_remove_path_attr =
+ __ATTR(remove_path, 0644, rtrs_clt_remove_path_show,
+ rtrs_clt_remove_path_store);
Could __ATTR_RW() have been used here?
+static struct kobj_attribute rtrs_clt_src_addr_attr =
+ __ATTR(src_addr, 0444, rtrs_clt_src_addr_show, NULL);
Could __ATTR_RO() have been used here?
+static struct attribute_group rtrs_clt_sess_attr_group = {
+ .attrs = rtrs_clt_sess_attrs,
+};
Can this data structure be declared 'const'?
Thanks,
Bart.
