Em Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:58:07 +0100
Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx> escreveu:
> On 02/19/2013 02:50 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 03:38:09PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >> because changing the permission will cause the same issue:
> >
> > Actually, I take that back. Mauro's patch will already create the file
> > anyway:
> >
> > if (mci->set_sdram_scrub_rate || mci->get_sdram_scrub_rate)
> >
> > Adjusting the permissions is simply the last missing piece to this patch
> > to make the interface to userspace 100% coherent.
> >
> > --
> > From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:16:10 -0300
> > Subject: [PATCH] EDAC: only create sdram_scrub_rate where supported
> >
> > Currently, sdram_scrub_rate sysfs node is created even if the device
> > doesn't support get/set the scub rate. Change the logic to only
> > create this device node when the operation is supported.
> >
> > If only read or only write is supported, it will keep returning -ENODEV
> > just like before.
> >
> > Reported-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/edac/edac_mc_sysfs.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/edac/edac_mc_sysfs.c b/drivers/edac/edac_mc_sysfs.c
> > index 0ca1ca71157f..5a788e60ff67 100644
> > --- a/drivers/edac/edac_mc_sysfs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/edac/edac_mc_sysfs.c
> > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
> > *
> > * Written Doug Thompson <norsk5@xxxxxxxxxxxx> www.softwarebitmaker.com
> > *
> > - * (c) 2012 - Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > + * (c) 2012-2013 - Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > * The entire API were re-written, and ported to use struct device
> > *
> > */
> > @@ -878,7 +878,6 @@ static struct attribute *mci_attrs[] = {
> > &dev_attr_ce_noinfo_count.attr,
> > &dev_attr_ue_count.attr,
> > &dev_attr_ce_count.attr,
> > - &dev_attr_sdram_scrub_rate.attr,
> > &dev_attr_max_location.attr,
> > NULL
> > };
> > @@ -1012,6 +1011,23 @@ int edac_create_sysfs_mci_device(struct mem_ctl_info *mci)
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > + if (mci->set_sdram_scrub_rate || mci->get_sdram_scrub_rate) {
> > + umode_t mode = 0;
> > +
> > + if (mci->get_sdram_scrub_rate)
> > + mode = S_IRUGO;
> > +
> > + if (mci->set_sdram_scrub_rate)
> > + mode |= S_IWUSR;
> > +
> > + dev_attr_sdram_scrub_rate.attr.mode = mode;
> > +
> > + err = device_create_file(&mci->dev, &dev_attr_sdram_scrub_rate);
> > + if (err) {
> > + edac_dbg(1, "failure: create sdram_scrub_rate\n");
> > + goto fail2;
> > + }
> > + }
> > /*
> > * Create the dimm/rank devices
> > */
> > @@ -1056,6 +1072,7 @@ fail:
> > continue;
> > device_unregister(&dimm->dev);
> > }
> > +fail2:
> > device_unregister(&mci->dev);
> > bus_unregister(&mci->bus);
> > kfree(mci->bus.name);
> >
> And of course you all know that creating sysfs attributes via
> 'device_create_file' opens all sort of funny race conditions,
> especially when checking these attributes from udev ...
Yes, we know that, but this subsystem has already lots of other
attributes created via device_create_file(). It used to be a
lot worse than that, as, on a very recent past (before Kernel 3.5),
those attributes were created via sysfs_create_file().
There's not much that can be done to avoid it on this subsystem.
>
> Please consider adding a default attribute which return '-EINVAL' or
> somesuch when the function pointers are not set.
> But _not_ adding it via device_create_file(). That's evil.
This thread started with Felipe's complain about it returning -ENOSYS ;)
when this feature is not supported.
Regards,
Mauro
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
