From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kay Sievers Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: add filter function to groups Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:54:12 +0100 Message-ID: <1193676852.2655.21.camel@lov.site> References: <1193671019.3383.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.188]:52235 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753971AbXJ2QwH (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:52:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1193671019.3383.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Greg KH , linux-scsi , linux-kernel On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 10:16 -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > In the SCSI transport classes (and soon to be in the AEN event > subsystem) we have a lot of need for a grouping that doesn't include all > files in the group. We basically want to show capability by which file > is present. A classic example of this is the SPI transport class > connected to the 53c700 card. It's incapable of doing all of the modern > LVD functions, so we don't show any of those capabilities in its sysfs > directory. However, we have a lot of horrible logic to generate > separate per host groupings of attributes for this. We would be able to > use the standard sysfs group attributes *if* there were a way of > filtering them so that certain attributes didn't appear. Sounds fine. > This patch is a first pass at adding a filter function to the group > attributes, just to see how the idea flies. If everyone's OK with this, > I think the next thing that we might do is add bitmap functions (so > every bit in the bitmap has a name, but also might not appear) to > groups. Bitmaps in the attribute groups? > struct attribute_group { > const char *name; > + int (*filter_show)(struct kobject *, int); Are you sure that you want to return an array index here, instead of the actual attribute? Like: int (*filter_show)(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute *attr); The names "show" and "store" are the ususal file-operation names, and we are not filtering a "show" here, right? Maybe "create", or "export", or something else might be a better name? Thanks, Kay