Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] include: linux: sysfs: Add __ATTR_NAMED macro

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 06:03:10PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:14:07 +0530
> Himanshi Jain <himshijain.hj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Add __ATTR_NAMED macro similar to __ATTR but taking name as a
> > string instead of implicit conversion of argument to string using
> > the macro _stringify(_name).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Himanshi Jain <himshijain.hj@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/sysfs.h | 7 +++++++
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sysfs.h b/include/linux/sysfs.h
> > index aa02c32..20321cf 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sysfs.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sysfs.h
> > @@ -104,6 +104,13 @@ struct attribute_group {
> >  	.store	= _store,						\
> >  }
> >  
> > +#define __ATTR_NAMED(_name, _mode, _show, _store) {			\
> 
> I'm not sure about the naming here.  The normal __ATTR macro is also
> 'named'.  Maybe something as awful as
> 
> __ATTR_STRING_NAME ? 
> 
> Greg what do you think?

ick ick ick.

> This is all to allow us to have names with operators in them without
> checkpatch complaining about them... A worthwhile aim just to stop
> more people wasting time trying to 'fix' those cases by adding spaces.

Yeah, but this really seems "heavy" for just a crazy sysfs name in a
macro.  Adding a whole new "core" define for that is a hard sell...

I also want to get rid of the "generic" __ATTR type macros, and force
people to use the proper _RW and friends instead.  I don't want to add
another new one that people will start to use that I later have to
change...

So no, I don't like this, how about just changing your macros instead?
No one else has this problem :)

thanks,

greg k-h