On 2018/5/20 5:14 PM, Kai Krakow wrote:
> Hi Greg!
>
> 2018-05-20 11:04 GMT+02:00 Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 10:59:32AM +0200, Kai Krakow wrote:
>>> Hey Greg!
>>>
>>> The v1 version applied for me but it shows a compiler warning. I didn't try
>>> the newer version yet.
>>>
>>> I could prepare a back-ported version.
>>
>> Backported would be good.
>
> Currently on the way. I'm not much into kernel development so I can
> only apply on 4.16.9, reboot, and check if it works. Hope that's okay.
>
> How should it be tagged then? Should I add my "Signed-off-by" or another line?
>
> Should it be sent as a v5 version of the patch?
>
>
Hi Kai,
I planed to back port the patch for stable after v4 patch merged into
mainline, and good to know this patch is merged into upstream today.
So the simplest way should be back port commit 1c1a2ee1b53b ("bcache:
return 0 from bch_debug_init() if CONFIG_DEBUG_FS=n") for v4.16 stable tree.
If you are working on the back port, then I will step back. Thank you
for the quick response, very helpful :-)
Coly Li
>> Also, the code really is wrong even with this change. No code path
>> should ever do anything different if debugfs is enabled or not, or based
>> on the return value of a debugfs call. No need to check anything here
>> at all, the function should be:
>>
>> void __init bch_debug_init(void)
>> {
>> bcache_debug = debugfs_create_dir("bcache", NULL);
>> }
>>
>> That's it, no checking, and all is fine and good. Any result of a
>> debugfs call can always be fed back into another debugfs call with no
>> harm or errors happening.
>
> I'll try to figure out if this works, and only then send the patch.
>
> Regards,
> Kai
>
