[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53299AF5.5020607@nod.at>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 14:26:13 +0100
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>
CC: dedekind1@...il.com, dwmw2@...radead.org,
computersforpeace@...il.com, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] UBI: block: Implement kernel_param_ops->get()
Am 19.03.2014 14:15, schrieb Ezequiel Garcia:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Mar 19, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> The ->get() function is not optional.
>>
>
> [..]
>> static struct kernel_param_ops ubiblock_param_ops = {
>> .set = ubiblock_set_param,
>> + .get = param_get_charp,
>> };
>> module_param_cb(block, &ubiblock_param_ops, NULL, 0);
>
> The comment for the function says they are both optional:
>
> /**
> * module_param_cb - general callback for a module/cmdline parameter
> * @name: a valid C identifier which is the parameter name.
> * @ops: the set & get operations for this parameter.
> * @perm: visibility in sysfs.
> *
> * The ops can have NULL set or get functions.
> */
>
> This has no visibility in sysfs, so I can't see how having a NULL
> get() is a problem. What's the issue you're trying to fix here?
>
> Maybe I'm missing something?
>
BTW: I think we can omit ->get() as some other drivers also only have ->set().
Who want the credit for a documentation fix? ;)
Thanks,
//richard
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists