Re: SYSFS "errors"
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Date: 2013-02-19 11:43:53
Also in:
linux-pm, linux-scsi, lkml
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2013-02-19 · Re: SYSFS "errors" · Felipe Balbi <hidden>
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 08:11:49AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
quoted
quoted
I remember I saw some discussions about it in the past at bluesmoke ML, saying that -ENODEV is the expected behavior when this is not supported. Changing from -ENODEV to "N/A" will break anything that would be relying on the previous behavior. So, I think that such change will for sure break userspace. If we're willing to change it, not creating the "sdram_scrub_rate" sysfs node is less likely to affect userspace.
This will break scripts which assume this file's presence implicitly. [ … ]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -1017,6 +1010,14 @@ int edac_create_sysfs_mci_device(struct mem_ctl_info *mci) return err; } + if (mci->set_sdram_scrub_rate && mci->get_sdram_scrub_rate) {
This will break cpc925_edac.c because it defines a
->get_sdram_scrub_rate but not a ->set_sdram_scrub_rate.
I think a maybe better fix would be to figure out the sysfs file
permissions based on the presence of the two functions and *then* add
the attribute.
This way, the only visible change to userspace is the corrected sysfs
file permissions.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--