linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND] PM / Domains: remove define_genpd_open_function() and define_genpd_debugfs

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: <CAJZ5v0hW_SFsQ-oGaHUtxTEXTdNRkDjp4ZpS_MxEp9-jTYvoew@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Dec 2018 10:17:38 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:     tiny.windzz@...il.com, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND] PM / Domains: remove define_genpd_open_function() and define_genpd_debugfs_fops()

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 9:32 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 09:19:07AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 09:45, Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > We already have the DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE, There is no need to define
> > > such a macro, so remove define_genpd_open_function and
> > > define_genpd_debugfs_fops.
> > >
> > > Convert them to DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/base/power/domain.c | 71 +++++++++++++------------------------
> > >  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > > index 7f38a92b444a..10a61d6147d0 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > > @@ -2671,7 +2671,7 @@ static int genpd_summary_one(struct seq_file *s,
> > >         return 0;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > -static int genpd_summary_show(struct seq_file *s, void *data)
> > > +static int summary_show(struct seq_file *s, void *data)
> >
> > Why rename the function(s)?
>
> Because the macro requires it?

Yeah.

Ulf, this looks like a good cleanup to me, any objections to this one
given the explanation above?