On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:55:20PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:53 PM, Andy Shevchenko > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> For debugging purposes it may be useful to know what are the devices whose > >> probe function was deferred. Add a debugfs entry showing that information. > > >> +static int deferred_devs_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file) > >> +{ > >> + return single_open(file, deferred_devs_show, inode->i_private); > >> +} > >> + > >> +static const struct file_operations deferred_devs_fops = { > >> + .owner = THIS_MODULE, > >> + .open = deferred_devs_open, > >> + .read = seq_read, > >> + .llseek = seq_lseek, > >> + .release = single_release, > >> +}; > > > > Isn't this DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE() ? > > Besides that, you are summoning Greg's dark side :-) > See below. > > >> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS)) { > >> + deferred_devices = debugfs_create_file("deferred_devices", > >> + 0444, NULL, NULL, > >> + > >> &deferred_devs_fops); > > >> + if (!deferred_devices) > >> + return -ENOMEM; > > This must not prevent the execution. So, the check introduces actually > a regression.
Awe, you beat me to it :) Also, I don't usually comment on RFC patches, as that shows the author really doesn't think that the code is ready to be reviewed/merged... thanks, greg k-h
