> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 2:34 PM > To: Stanislav Nijnikov <Stanislav.Nijnikov@xxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx; Alex Lemberg <Alex.Lemberg@xxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/10] ufs: sysfs: attribute group for existing sysfs > entries. > > On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 12:29:06PM +0000, Stanislav Nijnikov wrote: > > > > + curr_len += snprintf((buf + curr_len), (PAGE_SIZE - curr_len), > > > > + "\nAll available Runtime PM levels info:\n"); > > > > + for (lvl = UFS_PM_LVL_0; lvl < UFS_PM_LVL_MAX; lvl++) > > > > + curr_len += snprintf((buf + curr_len), (PAGE_SIZE - curr_len), > > > > + "\tRuntime PM level [%d] => dev_state > > > [%s] link_state [%s]\n", > > > > + lvl, > > > > + ufschd_ufs_dev_pwr_mode_to_string( > > > > + ufs_pm_lvl_states[lvl].dev_state), > > > > + ufschd_uic_link_state_to_string( > > > > + ufs_pm_lvl_states[lvl].link_state)); > > > > + > > > > > > sysfs if "one value per file", not "random text that someone has to > > > parse per file" please. > > > > > > Huge hint, if you ever care about checking the size of the sysfs > > > buffer you are writing into, you are doing something really really wrong. > > > > > Hi Greg > > It's the existing code, added by: > > commit 09690d5a6ae1b7e4cb5ac429c311b99d09352c12 > > Author: subhashj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <subhashj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Thu Dec 22 18:41:00 2016 -0800 > > > > scsi: ufs: provide sysfs attribute to select the PM level > > > > This patch provides the sysfs attribute to choose the power management > > level for UFS runtime and system suspend. > > > > Reviewed-by: Sujit Reddy Thumma <sthumma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Subhash Jadavani <subhashj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I just moved it to an another file and changed the sysfs entries > > creation by Jaegeuk Kim' request. At the moment the entry shows the PM > > level, the device state, the link state and all possible PM levels. Do you > want me to change it? > > Ah, you are just moving this code around. Ok, that's fine for this patch, but > please fix it up as part of this patch series because this isn't an acceptable > sysfs file at all. If it were documented that would be a lot more obvious as to > just how wrong it was :( > > And, as it wasn't documented, you can change it as it's obvious no one used it > :) > > thanks, > > greg k-h Can I fix these entries not in this patchset? As long as I know they are used and I would prefer that change of the existing sysfs entries behavior be related to a separate patch. Regards. Stanislav.
