From: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
Rajneesh Bhardwaj <rajneesh.bhardwaj@intel.com>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>,
Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] debugfs: improve DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE for !CONFIG_DEBUGFS_FS
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:59:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87vawwmuw5.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161010111313.119658-1-arnd@arndb.de> (Arnd Bergmann's message of "Mon, 10 Oct 2016 13:12:57 +0200")
Hi Arnd,
thanks for this (and sorry for the late reply)!
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> writes:
> The slp_s0_residency_usec debugfs file currently uses
> DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(), but that macro cannot really be used to
> define files outside of the debugfs code, as it has no reference to
> the get/set functions if CONFIG_DEBUGFS_FS is not defined:
>
> drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_core.c:80:12: error: ‘pmc_core_dev_state_get’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>
> This fixes the macro to always contain the reference, and instead rely
> on the stubbed-out debugfs_create_file to not actually refer to
> its arguments so the compiler can still drop the reference.
> This works because the attribute definition is always 'static',
> and the dead-code removal silently drops all static symbols
> that are not used.
>
> Fixes: c64688081490 ("debugfs: add support for self-protecting attribute file fops")
> Fixes: df2294fb6428 ("intel_pmc_core: Convert to DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> ---
> include/linux/debugfs.h | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/debugfs.h b/include/linux/debugfs.h
> index 4d3f0d1aec73..e94f5f8dced3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/debugfs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/debugfs.h
> @@ -62,6 +62,26 @@ static inline const struct file_operations *debugfs_real_fops(struct file *filp)
> return filp->f_path.dentry->d_fsdata;
> }
>
> +ssize_t debugfs_attr_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
> + size_t len, loff_t *ppos);
> +ssize_t debugfs_attr_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
> + size_t len, loff_t *ppos);
> +
> +#define DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(__fops, __get, __set, __fmt) \
> +static int __fops ## _open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file) \
> +{ \
> + __simple_attr_check_format(__fmt, 0ull); \
> + return simple_attr_open(inode, file, __get, __set, __fmt); \
> +} \
> +static const struct file_operations __fops = { \
> + .owner = THIS_MODULE, \
> + .open = __fops ## _open, \
> + .release = simple_attr_release, \
> + .read = debugfs_attr_read, \
> + .write = debugfs_attr_write, \
This depends on GCC dead code elimination to always work for this
situation, otherwise we'd get undefined references to
debugfs_attr_read/write(), right?
In order to avoid having to test your patch against all those older
versions of GCC, can we have a safety net here and define some dummy
debugfs_attr_read/write() for the !CONFIG_DEBUGFS case?
If nothing else, it would IMHO make the !CONFIG_DEBUGFS case more
understandable because one had not to figure out that this actually
relies on dead code elimination to work.
Thanks,
Nicolai
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-13 10:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-10 11:12 [PATCH 1/2] debugfs: improve DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE for !CONFIG_DEBUGFS_FS Arnd Bergmann
2016-10-10 11:12 ` [PATCH 2/2] intel_pmc_core: avoid boot time warning " Arnd Bergmann
2016-10-10 12:29 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2016-10-12 8:13 ` Darren Hart
2016-10-13 9:59 ` Nicolai Stange [this message]
2016-10-13 10:29 ` [PATCH 1/2] debugfs: improve DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE " Arnd Bergmann
2016-10-13 10:46 ` Nicolai Stange
2016-10-20 20:07 ` [PATCH v2] debugfs: improve DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE for !CONFIG_DEBUG_FS Nicolai Stange
2016-10-21 9:22 ` Andy Shevchenko
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=87vawwmuw5.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=nicstange@gmail.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rajneesh.bhardwaj@intel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).