On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:41:41AM +0000, Christopher Heiny wrote:
> Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Christopher Heiny <che...@synaptics.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_RMI4_DEBUG
> > > +/**
> > > + * Utility routine to handle writes to read-only attributes. Hopefully
> > > + * this will never happen, but if the user does something stupid, we
> > > don't
> > > + * want to accept it quietly (which is what can happen if you just put
> > > NULL + * for the attribute's store function).
> > > + */
> > > +static inline ssize_t rmi_store_error(struct device *dev,
> > > + struct device_attribute *attr,
> > > + const char *buf, size_t count)
> > > +{
> > > + dev_warn(dev,
> > > + "WARNING: Attempt to write %d characters to read-only
> > > attribute %s.", + count, attr->attr.name);
> > > + return -EPERM;
> > > +}
> >
> > Here it looks like you're hiding a lot of stuff that should be dev_warn()?
> > Consider my earlier point about dynamic debug.
>
> In previous patch submissions, we always used these warning functions.
> But in the feedback on those patches, we were asked to just make sysfs
> show/store NULL if the attribute is write/read only. However, during
> their development process, our customers want to see the warnings if
> the attributes are accessed incorrectly. So we made these warnings a
> debug option.
I think it is the case when customer is not always right. Given that
the attributes are created with S_IRUGO mask how will we even get these
methods to fire?
--
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
