Hello Coly, Greg!
2018-05-20 11:38 GMT+02:00 Coly Li <colyli@xxxxxxx>:
> 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.
I already did "git cherry-pick" as Greg suggested (with the id of the
failed patch).
> If you are working on the back port, then I will step back. Thank you
> for the quick response, very helpful :-)
Coly, then I could need your review after sending the patch.
>>> 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.
Thanks,
Kai
