From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50B571494DA for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:42:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714048973; cv=none; b=lNOa9sPTnba3Dv8X6oz3k6Ay0+hXXHX7d5eTlRWTJx4OT3LjVrO2NaMXmXHPBqzNBv3U2QN1Vy/NuFvEEJ1a6+RR82s2+4mcLrDTO6+K3Ti7ZBIAfYamUPTmK2d0vJgNz1JPeniGJROvlaA5wWmLhqig6eHP3EoUaowsJxfaA0s= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714048973; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5f7gvmenUZBkrJRZWL+AToX9QvQCvbJp+mDfyJclySs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=YPemgAwUAbSWgd/wKsyqD+msvxblGMw1zgA4X66wxCBWSEzR/+N57zlNDuOFlneIQ5EvzK2gkSp51/pUS/BgwnzWYnI6mriBhpc3sDkyHBEgGXdJCzKV0YxruR98w3PwvzNDSDYUbe3F04qWtRwf3+lwYgksMJSIFym3lTaiu9Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=OmYnxBtw; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="OmYnxBtw" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1714048970; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ks83tzRkgwed753odRbdN5YV4JJmKUKmc2dC5CbBan8=; b=OmYnxBtw4JfM1sPgVM7tT6hHaC75JIWYoMBBluukNUHL6Z/NTZC5C+1o8JAgtWVjXsbe4I NwLZtT9ifnVdgpMjrt7YU91H9JS60ur22DYzEVITwtZq4W1wMkOWRbHzEE8MNp5NIkg+Hi bTtKu9sdeAsqKCFZACCGzJ0uUOW26Y4= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-68-TbtsjZWkM0-88richfLD9w-1; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:42:48 -0400 X-MC-Unique: TbtsjZWkM0-88richfLD9w-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90C9F80D6E1 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:42:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fedora.redhat.com (unknown [10.22.8.242]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3486AEC682; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:42:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fedora.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B9819309975; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:42:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:42:47 -0400 From: Vivek Goyal To: Brian Foster Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi , Stefan Hajnoczi Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtiofs: include a newline in sysfs tag Message-ID: References: <20240425104400.30222-1-bfoster@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240425104400.30222-1-bfoster@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.5 On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 06:44:00AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > The internal tag string doesn't contain a newline. Append one when > emitting the tag via sysfs. > > Signed-off-by: Brian Foster > --- > > Hi all, > > I just noticed this and it seemed a little odd to me compared to typical > sysfs output, but maybe it was intentional..? Easy enough to send a > patch either way.. thoughts? In my initial patch I had added a newline char. Then someone gave examples where sysfs output did not have newline char. So I got rid of it. After that Stefan posted a new patch series that did not include newline. So yes it was intentional. I am sitting on the fence on this one. Don't have a strong preference either way. Others might have good arguments one way or the other. Thanks Vivek > > Brian > > fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c b/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c > index 322af827a232..bb3e941b9503 100644 > --- a/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c > +++ b/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c > @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ static ssize_t tag_show(struct kobject *kobj, > { > struct virtio_fs *fs = container_of(kobj, struct virtio_fs, kobj); > > - return sysfs_emit(buf, fs->tag); > + return sysfs_emit(buf, "%s\n", fs->tag); > } > > static struct kobj_attribute virtio_fs_tag_attr = __ATTR_RO(tag); > -- > 2.44.0 >