On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 11:22 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <b...@bgdev.pl> wrote:
>
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszew...@baylibre.com>
>
> Committable items in configfs are well defined and documented but 
> unfortunately
> so far never implemented.
>
> The use-case we have over at the GPIO subsystem is using configfs in
> conjunction with sysfs to replace our current gpio-mockup testing module
> with one that will be much more flexible and will allow complete coverage
> of the GPIO uAPI.
>
> The current gpio-mockup module is controlled using module parameters which
> forces the user to reload it everytime they need to change the chip
> configuration or layout and makes it difficult to extend its functionality.
>
> Testing module based on configfs would allow fine-grained control over dummy
> GPIO chips but since GPIO devices must be configured before they are
> instantiated, we need committable items.
>
> This implements them and adds code examples to configfs_sample module. The
> first two patches are just cosmetic.
>
> v1 -> v2:
> - fix a 'set but not used' build warning reported by kernel test robot
>
> v2 -> v3:
> - use (1UL << bit) instead of BIT() in patch 2/4
> - extend configfs_dump_one() to make it print the new flags
> - clear the CONFIGFS_USET_DIR bit on the live group dirent
>
> Rebased on top of v5.11-rc1.
>
> Bartosz Golaszewski (4):
>   configfs: increase the item name length
>   configfs: use (1UL << bit) for internal flags
>   configfs: implement committable items
>   samples: configfs: add a committable group
>
>  Documentation/filesystems/configfs.rst |   6 +-
>  fs/configfs/configfs_internal.h        |  22 +--
>  fs/configfs/dir.c                      | 240 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  fs/configfs/file.c                     |   8 +
>  include/linux/configfs.h               |   3 +-
>  samples/configfs/configfs_sample.c     | 150 ++++++++++++++++
>  6 files changed, 409 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.29.1
>

Joel, Christoph,

This series in its current form has been on the list for many weeks.
Are there any objections from your side against merging it for v5.12?

Best regards,
Bartosz Golaszewski

Reply via email to