Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next v3] xen-netback: Adding debugfs "io_ring_qX" files

[Zoltan Kiss]

On 08/07/14 18:39, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:

> > +	return count;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int xenvif_dump_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> > +{
> > +	int ret;
> > +	void *queue = NULL;
> > +
> > +	if (inode->i_private)
> > +		queue = inode->i_private;
> > +	ret = single_open(filp, xenvif_read_io_ring, queue);
> > +	filp->f_mode |= FMODE_PWRITE;
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct file_operations xenvif_dbg_io_ring_ops_fops = {
> > +	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > +	.open = xenvif_dump_open,
> > +	.read = seq_read,
> > +	.llseek = seq_lseek,
> > +	.release = single_release,
> > +	.write = xenvif_write_io_ring,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static void xenvif_debugfs_addif(struct xenvif_queue *queue)
> > +{
> > +	struct dentry *pfile;
> > +	struct xenvif *vif = queue->vif;
> > +	int i;
> > +
> > +	if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(xen_netback_dbg_root))
> > +		return;
>
> I am curious to how you tested this patch, as my reading of
> the code above would imply that when xen_netback_dbg_root is
> initialized - we won't continue within this function?
Indeed, I've just copy-pasted that snippet you wrote in your prev mail 
and I haven't tried it out, as it was a very small change. I'll fix it.

> > +
> >   static int netback_remove(struct xenbus_device *dev)
> >   {
> >   	struct backend_info *be = dev_get_drvdata(&dev->dev);
> > @@ -246,8 +413,12 @@ static void backend_create_xenvif(struct backend_info *be)
> >
> >   static void backend_disconnect(struct backend_info *be)
> >   {
> > -	if (be->vif)
> > +	if (be->vif) {
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> > +		xenvif_debugfs_delif(be->vif);
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_FS */
>
> Why don't you just leave it as it (without the #ifdef) and add an
> empty function for the #else CONFIG_DEBUG_FS like:
>
> #else
> static inline void xenvif_debugfs_addif(struct xenvif_queue *queue) {}
> static inline void xenvif_debugfs_delif(struct xenvif *vif) {}
> #endif
It wouldn't change the end result, but from the code reader's point of 
view the current way is a little bit better, as (s)he doesn't need to 
check the declaration to realize it has effect only if that config 
option is enabled.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/