linux-kernel - Re: gpiolib: add names file in gpio chip sysfs.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20090804164339.99667a23.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:43:39 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	ben@...ff.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: gpiolib: add names file in gpio chip sysfs.

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:55:36 +0100
ben@...ff.org wrote:
>

Did you mean the commit to have an author of ben@...ff.org?  I assumed
not and rewrote it to

	Ben Dooks <ben@...tec.co.uk>

If you indeed want a different Author: and Signed-off-by: line then
please indicate that explicitly by putting a From: line at the top of
the changelog.

As your MUA didn't fill in the real-name part of the From: address,
it's nice to provide a From: line in the changelog so the patch
receiver doesn't have to type it in.

> Add a 'names' file to the sysfs entries for each chip to show which
> have names.

Why?

> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben@...tec.co.uk>
> CC: David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> 
> ---
>  drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c |   21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
> 
> Index: b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> ===================================================================
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c	2009-08-03 17:51:40.000000000 +0100
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c	2009-08-03 17:53:04.000000000 +0100
> @@ -303,6 +303,7 @@ static const struct attribute_group gpio
>   *   /base ... matching gpio_chip.base (N)
>   *   /label ... matching gpio_chip.label
>   *   /ngpio ... matching gpio_chip.ngpio
> + *   /names ... matching gpio_chip.names
>   */
>  
>  static ssize_t chip_base_show(struct device *dev,
> @@ -332,10 +333,30 @@ static ssize_t chip_ngpio_show(struct de
>  }
>  static DEVICE_ATTR(ngpio, 0444, chip_ngpio_show, NULL);
>  
> +static ssize_t chip_names_show(struct device *dev,
> +			       struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> +{
> +	const struct gpio_chip*chip = dev_get_drvdata(dev);

Please use checkpatch.

> +	char **names = chip->names;
> +	int ptr = 0;
> +	int name;
> +
> +	if (!names)
> +		return -EINVAL;

Should this return -EINVAL?  Or should we simply return an empty read()?

> +	for (name = 0; name < chip->ngpio && ptr < PAGE_SIZE; name++)
> +		ptr += snprintf(buf + ptr, PAGE_SIZE - ptr,
> +				"%s\n", names[name] ? names[name] : "");
> +
> +	return ptr;
> +}
> +DEVICE_ATTR(names, 0444, chip_names_show, NULL);

I shall make this static.

>  static const struct attribute *gpiochip_attrs[] = {
>  	&dev_attr_base.attr,
>  	&dev_attr_label.attr,
>  	&dev_attr_ngpio.attr,
> +	&dev_attr_names.attr,
>  	NULL,
>  };
>  
> 
> -- 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/