Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH] PCI/IOV: Move sysfs SR-IOV functions to iov.c

Greg KH
2019-08-10T17:24:15Z

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 12:15:25PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 09:17:19AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 01:57:21PM -0600, Kelsey Skunberg wrote:
> > > +static struct device_attribute sriov_totalvfs_attr = __ATTR_RO(sriov_totalvfs);
> >
> > DEVICE_ATTR_RO() please. This is a device attribute, not a "raw"
> > kobject attribute.
>
> This patch is just a move; here's the source of the line above:
>
> > > -static struct device_attribute sriov_totalvfs_attr = __ATTR_RO(sriov_totalvfs);
>
> I certainly support using DEVICE_ATTR_RO() instead of __ATTR_RO(), but
> that should be down with a separate patch so it's not buried in what
> is otherwise a simple move.
>
> > > +static struct device_attribute sriov_numvfs_attr =
> > > + __ATTR(sriov_numvfs, (S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR | S_IWGRP),
> > > + sriov_numvfs_show, sriov_numvfs_store);
> > > +static struct device_attribute sriov_offset_attr = __ATTR_RO(sriov_offset);
> > > +static struct device_attribute sriov_stride_attr = __ATTR_RO(sriov_stride);
> > > +static struct device_attribute sriov_vf_device_attr =
> > > + __ATTR_RO(sriov_vf_device);
> > > +static struct device_attribute sriov_drivers_autoprobe_attr =
> > > + __ATTR(sriov_drivers_autoprobe, (S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR | S_IWGRP),
> > > + sriov_drivers_autoprobe_show,
> > > + sriov_drivers_autoprobe_store);
> >
> > Same for all of these, they should use DEVICE_ATTR* macros.
> >
> > And why the odd permissions on 2 of these files? Are you sure about
> > that?
>
> Same for these. It'd be nice to fix them (and similar cases in
> pci-sysfs.c, rpadlpar_sysfs.c, sgi_hotplug.c, slot.c) but in a
> separate patch.
>
> I think Kelsey did the right thing here by not mixing unrelated fixes
> in with the code move. A couple additional patches to change the
> __ATTR() uses and the permissions (git grep "\<S_" finds several
> possibilities) would be icing on the cake, but getting the SR-IOV
> code all together is an improvement by itself.

Ah, ok, that makes more sense. As long as this is patch 1/X, I'm fine
with it :)

thanks,

greg k-h