From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Bo Liu <liubo03@inspur.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: replace DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE with DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 19:39:40 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y2LHfJYjd1PxPVQq@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c0b98151-16b6-6d8f-1765-0f7d46682d60@redhat.com>
On Wed, Nov 02, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 11/1/22 08:25, Bo Liu wrote:
> > Fix the following coccicheck warning:
> > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c:3847:0-23: WARNING
> > vcpu_get_pid_fops should be defined with DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bo Liu <liubo03@inspur.com>
> > ---
> > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > index f1df24c2bc84..3f383f27d3d7 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > @@ -3844,7 +3844,7 @@ static int vcpu_get_pid(void *data, u64 *val)
> > return 0;
> > }
> > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vcpu_get_pid_fops, vcpu_get_pid, NULL, "%llu\n");
> > +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(vcpu_get_pid_fops, vcpu_get_pid, NULL, "%llu\n");
> > static void kvm_create_vcpu_debugfs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
>
> If you really wanted to do this, you would also have to replace
> debugfs_create_file with debugfs_create_file_unsafe.
>
> However, this is not a good idea. The rationale in the .cocci file is that
> "DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE + debugfs_create_file() imposes some significant
> overhead", but this should not really be relevant for a debugfs file.
>
> Such a patch would only make sense if there was a version of
> debugfs_create_file_unsafe() with a less-terrible name (e.g.
> debugfs_create_simple_attr?), which could _only_ be used with fops created
> by DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE. Without such a type-safe trick, the .cocci
> file is only adding confusion to perfectly fine code.
Heh, some serious deja vu here[1]. This is the second case of identical, flawed
patches being sent in response to misguided coccinelle warnings in a rather short
amount of time, the "return min(r, 0)" horror being the other case[2][3].
The min() thing is supposed to be fixed by commit aeb300c1dbfc ("coccinelle: misc:
minmax: suppress patch generation for err returns"). Is that patch broken, or are
folks just running old scripts?
As for the DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE check, can that warning be downgraded (is that
even a thing?) or even deleted? As much as I enjoyed the opportunity to learn more
about debugfs, the unnecessary confusion and wasted time was/is annoying.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Yxoo1A2fmlAWruyV@google.com
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/8881d7b4-0c31-cafd-1158-0d42c1c7f43a@redhat.com
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/d8a518c4a4014307b30020b38022d633@AcuMS.aculab.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-02 19:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-01 7:25 [PATCH] KVM: replace DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE with DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE Bo Liu
2022-11-02 17:48 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-11-02 19:39 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-02-01 8:38 [PATCH] KVM: Replace " Jiapeng Chong
2021-02-01 9:01 ` Paolo Bonzini
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=Y2LHfJYjd1PxPVQq@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liubo03@inspur.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.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