On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 01:56:24PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 04:42:23PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> >
> > struct proc_entry_raw foo_pe_raw = {
> > .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > .name = "foo",
> > .mode = 0644,
> > .read_proc = foo_read_proc,
> > .data = foo_data,
> > .parent = foo_parent,
> > };
> >
> > pde = create_proc_entry(&foo_pe_raw);
> > if (!pde)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > where "struct proc_entry_raw" is cut down version of "struct
> > proc_dir_entry"
>
> Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww
>
> Please, please no. Especially not .parent. If anything, let's add a
> helper saying "it's all set up now". And turn create_proc_entry()
> into a macro that would pass THIS_MODULE to underlying function and
> call that helper, so that simple cases wouldn't have to bother at all.
People are setting ->data after create_proc_entry():
drivers/zorro/proc.c:
110 static int __init zorro_proc_attach_device(u_int slot)
111 {
112 struct proc_dir_entry *entry;
113 char name[4];
114
115 sprintf(name, "%02x", slot);
116 entry = create_proc_entry(name, 0, proc_bus_zorro_dir);
117 if (!entry)
118 return -ENOMEM;
119 entry->proc_fops = &proc_bus_zorro_operations;
120 entry->data = &zorro_autocon[slot];
121 entry->size = sizeof(struct zorro_dev);
If create_proc_entry is a macro doing what you suggest (am I right?)
#define create_proc_entry(name, mode, parent)
({
struct proc_dir_entry *pde;
pde = __create_proc_entry(name, mode, parent, THIS_MODULE);
if (pde)
mark_proc_entry_ready(pde);
pde;
})
there is still a problem because we want it to be equivalent to
pde = create_proc_entry(...);
if (!pde)
return -ENOMEM;
pde->proc_fops = ...;
pde->data = ...;
mark_proc_entry_ready(pde);
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
