From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] EDAC: Fix debugfs_simple_attr.cocci warnings
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 20:38:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181005203831.GF10285@zn.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1538736760-101310-1-git-send-email-yuehaibing@huawei.com>
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 10:52:40AM +0000, YueHaibing wrote:
> Use DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE rather than DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE
> for debugfs files.
>
> Semantic patch information:
> Rationale: DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE + debugfs_create_file()
> imposes some significant overhead as compared to
What significant overhead? This commit message needs to explain what is
wrong with the use of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE first.
> DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE + debugfs_create_file_unsafe().
Reading the comment over this function:
* It is your responsibility to protect your struct file_operation
* methods against file removals by means of debugfs_use_file_start()
* and debugfs_use_file_finish(). ->open() is still protected by
* debugfs though.
doesn't sound like something I'd want to additionally pay attention to.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [-next] EDAC: Fix debugfs_simple_attr.cocci warnings
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 22:38:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181005203831.GF10285@zn.tnic> (raw)
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 10:52:40AM +0000, YueHaibing wrote:
> Use DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE rather than DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE
> for debugfs files.
>
> Semantic patch information:
> Rationale: DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE + debugfs_create_file()
> imposes some significant overhead as compared to
What significant overhead? This commit message needs to explain what is
wrong with the use of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE first.
> DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE + debugfs_create_file_unsafe().
Reading the comment over this function:
* It is your responsibility to protect your struct file_operation
* methods against file removals by means of debugfs_use_file_start()
* and debugfs_use_file_finish(). ->open() is still protected by
* debugfs though.
doesn't sound like something I'd want to additionally pay attention to.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-05 20:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-05 10:52 [PATCH -next] EDAC: Fix debugfs_simple_attr.cocci warnings YueHaibing
2018-10-05 10:52 ` [-next] " YueHaibing
2018-10-05 20:38 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2018-10-05 20:38 ` Borislav Petkov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181005203831.GF10285@zn.tnic \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-edac@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=yuehaibing@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.