Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] include: linux: sysfs: Add __ATTR_NAMED macro

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 09:23:31PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 09/13/2017 08:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 06:03:10PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:14:07 +0530
> >> Himanshi Jain <himshijain.hj@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Add __ATTR_NAMED macro similar to __ATTR but taking name as a
> >>> string instead of implicit conversion of argument to string using
> >>> the macro _stringify(_name).
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Himanshi Jain <himshijain.hj@gmail.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  include/linux/sysfs.h | 7 +++++++
> >>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/sysfs.h b/include/linux/sysfs.h
> >>> index aa02c32..20321cf 100644
> >>> --- a/include/linux/sysfs.h
> >>> +++ b/include/linux/sysfs.h
> >>> @@ -104,6 +104,13 @@ struct attribute_group {
> >>>  	.store	= _store,						\
> >>>  }
> >>>  
> >>> +#define __ATTR_NAMED(_name, _mode, _show, _store) {			\
> >>
> >> I'm not sure about the naming here.  The normal __ATTR macro is also
> >> 'named'.  Maybe something as awful as
> >>
> >> __ATTR_STRING_NAME ? 
> >>
> >> Greg what do you think?
> > 
> > ick ick ick.
> > 
> >> This is all to allow us to have names with operators in them without
> >> checkpatch complaining about them... A worthwhile aim just to stop
> >> more people wasting time trying to 'fix' those cases by adding spaces.
> > 
> > Yeah, but this really seems "heavy" for just a crazy sysfs name in a
> > macro.  Adding a whole new "core" define for that is a hard sell...
> > 
> > I also want to get rid of the "generic" __ATTR type macros, and force
> > people to use the proper _RW and friends instead.  I don't want to add
> > another new one that people will start to use that I later have to
> > change...
> > 
> > So no, I don't like this, how about just changing your macros instead?
> > No one else has this problem :)
> 
> Nobody else realized they have this problem yet. E.g. there are a few users
> of __ATTR in block/genhd.c that have the same issue and are likely to
> generate the same false positives from static checkers.

Then fix the broken static checkers :)