RE: [PATCH] sysfs: Remove page boundary align limitation on sysfs_emit and sysfs_emit_at

[Yu, Lang]

[AMD Official Use Only]



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 9:04 PM
>To: Yu, Lang <Lang.Yu@xxxxxxx>
>Cc: Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Rafael J . Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>;
>linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: Remove page boundary align limitation on sysfs_emit
>and sysfs_emit_at
>
>A:
>https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipe
>dia.org%2Fwiki%2FTop_post&amp;data=04%7C01%7CLang.Yu%40amd.com%7C
>fed047de547541548fcc08d972c92627%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d
>%7C0%7C0%7C637667030534349355%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoi
>MC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&
>amp;sdata=LHujj041jxZjvoYxVYUKtNr7us%2FX4pl%2FdOkFSOP1W8U%3D&amp;r
>eserved=0
>Q: Were do I find info about this thing called top-posting?
>A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>A: Top-posting.
>Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>
>A: No.
>Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
>
>https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdaringfire
>ball.net%2F2007%2F07%2Fon_top&amp;data=04%7C01%7CLang.Yu%40amd.co
>m%7Cfed047de547541548fcc08d972c92627%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d99
>4e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637667030534349355%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey
>JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C
>1000&amp;sdata=AOLGBdj01XiEjhmsBSGTNuqejgU%2B6jg416Paz5XdM1A%3D&a
>mp;reserved=0
>
>
>On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 12:52:43PM +0000, Yu, Lang wrote:
>> [AMD Official Use Only]
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>> Just curious if we don't put such a limitation, what are the consequences?
>> If we remove the limitation, sys_emit/sys_emit_at api will be more flexible.
>> Since the comments of  sysfs_emit/ sys_emit_at api are " sysfs_emit -
>> scnprintf equivalent, aware of PAGE_SIZE buffer. ", Why not make them
>> more equivalent with scnprintf?
>
>Because this is not a general replacement for scnprintf(), it is only to be used with
>sysfs files.
>
>Where else are you wanting to use these functions that this patch woulud be
>required that does not haver to deal with sysfs?
>
>thanks,
>
>greg k-h

But some guys think it is a general replacement for scnprintf(),
and  recommend that use sysfs_emit() instead of scnprintf(),
and send many patches that replace  scnprintf() with sysfs_emit(),
and finally cause some invalid sysfs_emit_at: buf:00000000f19bdfde warnings.
 
I think we better not put " scnprintf equivalent, aware of PAGE_SIZE buffer " words in comments.
It is obviously not. Some  guys are misled by that. Thanks! 

Regards,
Lang