Dear Shuah, Sorry for taking time. It's caused by my patch. It was included "vhci number of ports extension" patch set. The set consists of 3 patches. The fixing was included in v5. Only 1/3 of the set was merged but I missed to check the fixing line. This time, I took my time to check 'exporting devices' e-mails so I was late to read this e-mail. Thank you for your help, nobuo.iwata // > -----Original Message----- > From: Shuah Khan [mailto:shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 11:32 PM > To: fx IWATA NOBUO; Andrey Konovalov > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman; Valentina Manea; Shuah Khan; > linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; LKML; Shuah Khan > Subject: Re: [PATCH] usbip: fix warning in vhci_hcd_probe/lockdep_init_map > > 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 ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���)�� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
