From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754574AbZBREnm (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:43:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752797AbZBREne (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:43:34 -0500 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:37627 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751725AbZBREnd (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:43:33 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,226,1233561600"; d="scan'208";a="490838698" Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:43:03 +0800 From: Yu Zhao To: Greg KH Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 6/7] PCI: document SR-IOV sysfs entries Message-ID: <20090217144303.GA2452@yzhao-otc.sh.intel.com> References: <1234790920-1810-1-git-send-email-yu.zhao@intel.com> <1234790920-1810-7-git-send-email-yu.zhao@intel.com> <20090217125021.GA2403@yzhao-otc.sh.intel.com> <20090218034910.GA10990@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090218034910.GA10990@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:49:10AM +0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 08:50:21PM +0800, Yu Zhao wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > The `struct device' is preferred over the `struct kobject' in all cases > > that create subdirectory in sysfs, is this true? > > If you have a parent directory being controlled by a struct device, yes. Thanks! Do we need to document this somewhere? > > I'd like to create a subdirectory under PCI device sysfs directory and > > put some symbol links into that directory (only symbol links). Should I > > use `device' or `kobject'? Currently I use `device' and get two extra > > file/directory (uevent and power) which look like useless for my case > > because this subdirectory doesn't reflect a real device. > > Neither, just use an attribute group, no new struct device should be > needed at all. Yes, I was thinking using an attribute group, however, it looks like we can't put symbol link into a group. Maybe I'm wrong, shed some light, please? Regards, Yu