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

[Lars-Peter Clausen]

On 09/13/2017 08:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> 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 :)

Nobody else realized they have this problem yet. E.g. there are a few users
of __ATTR in block/genhd.c that have the same issue and are likely to
generate the same false positives from static checkers.