On 12/07/2016 09:12 PM, fx IWATA NOBUO wrote:
> Dear Shuah,
>
>> I noticed that in many places sysfs_attr_init() is called before populating
>> the fields such as name etc. However, I don't think the order matters.
>>
>> sysfs_attr_init() doesn't depend on name or any other fields being set:
>>
>> #define sysfs_attr_init(attr) \
>> do { \
>> static struct lock_class_key __key; \
>> \
>> (attr)->key = &__key; \
>> } while (0)
>>
>> Are you concerned about something else?
>
> Yes.
>
> If the macro name is 'attr_set_key', I don't have any concern.
>
> The name is 'attr_init' so I think there's possibility that some other
> items in attr may initialized in future.
>
> Also I think 'initialize struct first, then set items' is idiomatic order.
>
> Best Regards,
>
I am seeing places where sysfs_attr_init() after setting the name as well.
As this is more of a better done this way - I will fix this in the next
release. It is more important to fix the lockdep warning.
thanks,
-- Shuah
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
