From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:00:13 +0200 From: "hch@lst.de" To: Bart Van Assche Cc: "hare@suse.de" , "axboe@kernel.dk" , "hch@lst.de" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "keith.busch@intel.com" , "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "hare@suse.com" , "sagi@grimberg.me" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] nvme: register ns_id attributes as default sysfs groups Message-ID: <20180817070013.GD11170@lst.de> References: <20180814073305.87255-1-hare@suse.de> <20180814073305.87255-3-hare@suse.de> <5a4aab8b5f509d8090ad10107b01d11285fe1528.camel@wdc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: List-ID: On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 03:44:57PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Tue, 2018-08-14 at 17:39 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > While I have considered having nvme_nvm_register_sysfs() returning a > > pointer I would then have to remove the 'static' declaration from the > > nvm_dev_attr_group_12/20. > > Which I didn't really like, either. > > Hmm ... I don't see why the static declaration would have to be removed from > nvm_dev_attr_group_12/20 if nvme_nvm_register_sysfs() would return a pointer? > Am I perhaps missing something? No, I think that would be the preferable approach IFF patching the global table of groups would be viable. I don't think it is, though - we can have both normal NVMe and LightNVM devices in the same system, so we can't just patch it over. So we'll need three different attribut group arrays: const struct attribute_group *nvme_ns_id_attr_groups[] = { &nvme_ns_id_attr_group, NULL, }; const struct attribute_group *lightnvm12_ns_id_attr_groups[] = { &nvme_ns_id_attr_group, &nvm_dev_attr_group_12, NULL, }; const struct attribute_group *lightnvm20_ns_id_attr_groups[] = { &nvme_ns_id_attr_group, &nvm_dev_attr_group_20, NULL, }; and a function to select which one to use. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hch@lst.de (hch@lst.de) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:00:13 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/5] nvme: register ns_id attributes as default sysfs groups In-Reply-To: References: <20180814073305.87255-1-hare@suse.de> <20180814073305.87255-3-hare@suse.de> <5a4aab8b5f509d8090ad10107b01d11285fe1528.camel@wdc.com> Message-ID: <20180817070013.GD11170@lst.de> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018@03:44:57PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Tue, 2018-08-14@17:39 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > While I have considered having nvme_nvm_register_sysfs() returning a > > pointer I would then have to remove the 'static' declaration from the > > nvm_dev_attr_group_12/20. > > Which I didn't really like, either. > > Hmm ... I don't see why the static declaration would have to be removed from > nvm_dev_attr_group_12/20 if nvme_nvm_register_sysfs() would return a pointer? > Am I perhaps missing something? No, I think that would be the preferable approach IFF patching the global table of groups would be viable. I don't think it is, though - we can have both normal NVMe and LightNVM devices in the same system, so we can't just patch it over. So we'll need three different attribut group arrays: const struct attribute_group *nvme_ns_id_attr_groups[] = { &nvme_ns_id_attr_group, NULL, }; const struct attribute_group *lightnvm12_ns_id_attr_groups[] = { &nvme_ns_id_attr_group, &nvm_dev_attr_group_12, NULL, }; const struct attribute_group *lightnvm20_ns_id_attr_groups[] = { &nvme_ns_id_attr_group, &nvm_dev_attr_group_20, NULL, }; and a function to select which one to use.