Re: [PATCH next 0/3] debugfs: introduce debugfs_create_single/seq[,_data]

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 11:16:38PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2019/11/29 22:21, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 05:27:49PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> >> Like proc_create_single/seq[,_data] in procfs, we could provide similar debugfs
> >> helper to reduce losts of boilerplate code.
> >>
> >> debugfs_create_single[,_data]
> >>   creates a file in debugfs with the extra data and a seq_file show callback.
> >> debugfs_create_seq[,_data]
> >>   creates a file in debugfs with the extra data and a seq_operations.
> >>
> >> There is a object dynamically allocated in the helper, which is used to store
> >> extra data, we need free it when remove the debugfs file.
> >>
> >> If the change is acceptable, we could change the caller one by one.
> > 
> > I would like to see a user of this and how you would convert it, in
> > order to see if this is worth it or not.
> 
> I have some diff patches, the conversion is in progress. current statistics
> are as follows,
> 
> 1) debugfs: switch to debugfs_create_seq[,_data]
> 19 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 620 deletions(-)
> 2) debugfs: switch to debugfs_create_single[,_data]
> 70 files changed, 249 insertions(+), 1482 deletions(-)
> 
> Here are some examples,
> 1) debugfs_create_seq
> diff --git a/mm/vmstat.c b/mm/vmstat.c
> index 78d53378db99..62c26772f24c 100644
> --- a/mm/vmstat.c
> +++ b/mm/vmstat.c
> @@ -2057,18 +2057,6 @@ static const struct seq_operations unusable_op = {
>  	.show	= unusable_show,
>  };
> 
> -static int unusable_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> -{
> -	return seq_open(file, &unusable_op);
> -}
> -
> -static const struct file_operations unusable_file_ops = {
> -	.open		= unusable_open,
> -	.read		= seq_read,
> -	.llseek		= seq_lseek,
> -	.release	= seq_release,
> -};
> -

Can't this file just use the normal file macro/interface for debugfs
files instead?  Hm, maybe not, it seems the celf code wants to do much
the same as above, but is seq_read() really needed for these?

There are loads of places where open-coded debugfs file ops can just be
converted to use the existing macros, maybe do that work first before
adding new ones?

thanks,

greg k-h