[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200506150623.3841-1-raishwar@visteon.com>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 20:36:22 +0530
From: Aishwarya Ramakrishnan <aishwaryarj100@...il.com>
To: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: aishwaryarj100@...il.com,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>,
Ondrej Jirman <megous@...ous.com>,
Mylène Josserand <mylene.josserand@...tlin.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] Input: edt-ft5x06: Use DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE to define debugfs fops
From: Aishwarya Ramakrishnan <aishwaryarj100@...il.com>
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 11:49 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 09:03:24PM +0530, Aishwarya Ramakrishnan wrote:
>> It is more clear to use DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE to define debugfs file
>> operation rather than DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE.
> No it is not, why do you think so?
This change is suggested by Coccinelle software.
Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
> The two defines do different things, that is why we have 2 different
> defines. You can not just replace one with the other without
> understanding why one was used and not the other one.
> Did you test this change to verify that everything still works
> properly? Why is it needed to be changed at all?
DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE + debugfs_create_file()
imposes some significant overhead as compared to
DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE + debugfs_create_file_unsafe().
But I missed to use debugfs_create_file_unsafe() function in the patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists