Re: PATCH] [ConfigFS]: Extend CONFIGFS_ATTR_STRUCT() and CONFIGFS_ATTR_OPS() macros

On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 15:13 -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 03:06:29PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
Hi Joel,

What do you think..?

Also, here is the drivers/lio-core/iscsi_target_configfs.c commit to
convert to use to new parameters for CONFIGFS_ATTR_STRUCT() and
CONFIGFS_ATTR_OPS():

It seems even more complex, and inconsistent with what sysfs
and other users do. Can you give me an example of using it?


Sure, my reasoning was as I was looking at converting as much code as
possible in target_core_config.c and iscsi_target_configfs.c to use the
include/linux/config.h wrappers, I have noticed I am running into a
limitiation with existing code:

Having the user's attribute set of macro's '_name' being synonymous with
both the user's struct _item * and show()/store() defines with
CONFIGFS_ATTR_OPS() was going to cause namespace pollution when you want
to be able generic show()/store() on multiple struct config_groups
hanging off the same original struct _item.

For me, this was looking like problems when you have multiple default
struct config_groups off a single struct config_group,
namely /sys/kernel/config/target/iscsi/$IQN/$TPGT amoung other places in
LIO-Target.

Also, I would argue the patch makes the existing attribute macro in
configfs.h slightly *LESS* complex for the users of the macro because
you no longer have to define your own internal "to_<name>()" for each
struct config_group you want to hang attributes off.

Thanks!

--nab

Joel


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Relevant Pages