On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 09:11 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 05:23:32PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 13:42 +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 16:59:12 -0700, > > > Greg Kroah-Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > From: Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > Add kobj_sysfs_ops to replace subsys_sysfs_ops. There is no > > > > need for special kset operations, we want to be able to use > > > > simple attribute operations at any kobject, not only ksets. > > > > > > > > The whole concept of any default sysfs attribute operations > > > > will go away with the upcoming removal of subsys_sysfs_ops. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > --- > > > > include/linux/kobject.h | 10 ++++++++++ > > > > lib/kobject.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > > > How about adding some simple wrappers around the new kobj_attribute > > > structure? This makes the layering clearer. > > > > > +#define KOBJ_ATTR(_name,_mode,_show,_store) \ > > > + struct kobj_attribute kobj_attr_##_name = \ > > > + __ATTR(_name,_mode,_show,_store) > > > > That sounds fine. > > > > > +extern int __must_check kobject_create_file(struct kobject *, > > > > > > struct kobj_attribute *); > > > +extern void kobject_remove_file(struct kobject *,struct kobj_attribute > > > *); > > > > That should usually be done by default attributes assigned to the ktype. > > Do you have a good use case, where people need to create such attributes > > individually instead? > > The s390 code that was converted to use kobj_attributes :) > > These look very useful, I'll go add them to the series unless Kay really > objects.
I just want to hear a good reason to create attributes individually. :) Especially in conjunction with kobject_register(), these attributes are not available at uevent time, which is really really bad. Default attributes just work fine, and have the proper error handling built-in. Offering special functions for it, may just encourage people to continue this "broken" way of creating attributes. So I really object, unless we get a good example why it's needed. :) Kay - 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/
