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  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]
Date:   Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:51:56 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 05/13] Documentation/ABI: Add new node sysfs attributes

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 5:37 PM Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 05:16:05PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 10:01 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you do a subdirectory "correctly" (i.e. a name for an attribute
> > > group), that's fine.
> >
> > Yes, that's what I was thinking about: along the lines of the "power"
> > group under device kobjects.
>
> We can't append symlinks to an attribute group, though.

That's right, unfortunately.

> I'd need to create a lot of struct devices just to get the desired directory hiearchy.

No, you don't need to do that.  Kobjects can be added without
registering a struct device for each of them kind of along the lines
of what cpufreq does for its policy objects etc.  See
cpufreq_policy_alloc() and cpufreq_core_init() for examples.

> And then each of those "devices" will have their own "power" group, which
> really doesn't make any sense for what we're trying to show. Is that
> really the right way to do this, or something else I'm missing?

Above?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists