On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Or Gerlitz <ogerl...@mellanox.com> wrote:
> +static struct attribute_group pma_ext_group = {
> + .name = "counters_ext",
> + .attrs = pma_attrs_ext
> +};
Sorry for the late review here, but does it seem like the best
approach to have a separate "counters_ext" directory for
some subset of performance counters? Instead we could
have two attribute_groups, one the basic counters and one
the basic and extended counters, and basically do
if (is_pma_class_cap_ext_width(device, port_num) == 0)
sysfs_create_group(...basic and extended counters...)
else
sysfs_create_group(...basic counters...)
(by the way, is_pma_class_cap_ext_width() seems backwards
since it returns 0 for true. How about bool pma_has_ext_width()
and have it return true if the extended counters ARE supported?)
Or is there some reason why users would want to make the
distinction between basic and extended counters?
- R.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
