On 2020/7/16 17:54, Coly Li wrote:
> On 2020/7/16 17:03, Qinglang Miao wrote:
>> From: Yongqiang Liu <liuyongqiang13@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>
> Hi Qianlang and Yongqiang,
>
>> Use DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE macro to simplify the code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Liu <liuyongqiang13@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/md/bcache/closure.c | 16 +++-------------
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
>> index 99222aa5d..37b9c5d49 100644
>> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
>> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
>> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ void closure_debug_destroy(struct closure *cl)
>>
>> static struct dentry *closure_debug;
>>
>> -static int debug_seq_show(struct seq_file *f, void *data)
>> +static int debug_show(struct seq_file *f, void *data)
>> {
>> struct closure *cl;
>>
>> @@ -188,17 +188,7 @@ static int debug_seq_show(struct seq_file *f, void *data)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static int debug_seq_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>> -{
>> - return single_open(file, debug_seq_show, NULL);
>> -}
>> -
>
> Here NULL is sent to single_open(), in DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE()
> inode->i_private is sent into single_open(). I don't see the commit log
> mentions or estimates such change.
>
Still this change modifies original code logic, I need to know the exact
effect before taking this patch.
>
>> -static const struct file_operations debug_ops = {
>> - .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> - .open = debug_seq_open,
>> - .read_iter = seq_read_iter,
>
> I doubt this patch applies to Linux v5.8-rc, this is how debug_ops is
> defined in Linux v5.8-rc5,
>
I realize your patch is against linux-next, which is ahead of both
linux-block and mainline tree. So this patch does not apply to
linux-block tree, which is my upstream for bcache going to upstream.
I suggest to generate the patch against latest mainline kernel, or
linux-block branch for next merge window (for 5.9 it is branch
remotes/origin/for-5.9/drivers).
> 196 static const struct file_operations debug_ops = {
> 197 .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> 198 .open = debug_seq_open,
> 199 .read = seq_read,
> 200 .release = single_release
> 201 };
>
>> - .release = single_release
>> -};
>> +DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE(debug);
>>
>> void __init closure_debug_init(void)
>> {
>> @@ -209,7 +199,7 @@ void __init closure_debug_init(void)
>> * about this.
>> */
>> closure_debug = debugfs_create_file(
>> - "closures", 0400, bcache_debug, NULL, &debug_ops);
>> + "closures", 0400, bcache_debug, NULL, &debug_fops);
>> }
>> #endif
>
> Do you test your change with upstream kernel ? Or at least you should
> try to apply and compile the patch with latest upstream kernel.
I withdraw the above wrong word, the -next tag in patch subject was
overlooked by me. Next time I will try to avoid such mistake.
Coly Li
