On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 08:12:02AM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 10:29 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 09:38:04AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 20:55 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > OSame problem here, if grp->is_visible is not set
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 10:29 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 09:38:04AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 20:55 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > OSame problem here, if grp->is_visible is not set, sysfs_add_file() would
> > > never be called, right?
> > >
> > > Other
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 09:38:04AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 20:55 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > OSame problem here, if grp->is_visible is not set, sysfs_add_file() would
> > never be called, right?
> >
> > Other than the logic problem (I think), I have no issue with this i
On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 20:55 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> OSame problem here, if grp->is_visible is not set, sysfs_add_file() would
> never be called, right?
>
> Other than the logic problem (I think), I have no issue with this idea
> at all. Care to redo this so it works?
It's a fair cop govenor ...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:37:36 +0100,
Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > mask_out() would also imply that the common use case is to have all
> > attributes in the group created and that you need to take action to
> > have an attribute not created.
>
> Here you have a point. But James ha
Hi Kay:
* Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-31 03:01:56 +0100]:
> On Oct 31, 2007 1:40 AM, Mark M. Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-30 13:25:43 -0500]:
> > > On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 18:58 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > > > James Bottomley
Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:52:35 +0100,
> Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> if (!grp->is_visible ||
>> grp->is_visible(kobj, *attr, i))
>> add or remove();
>>
>
> Hm, I find that a bit harder to parse...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:52:35 +0100,
Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 01:25:43PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> >>> + for (i = 0, attr = grp->attrs; *attr; i++, attr++)
> >>> + if (grp->is_v
Cornelia Huck wrote:
> Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 01:25:43PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> + for (i = 0, attr = grp->attrs; *attr; i++, attr++)
>>> + if (grp->is_visible &&
>>> + grp->is_visible(kobj, *attr, i))
>>> +
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:55:06 -0700,
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 01:25:43PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Index: BUILD-2.6/fs/sysfs/group.c
> > ===
> > --- BUILD-2.6.orig/fs/sysfs/group.c 2007-10-28
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 01:25:43PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 18:58 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > James Bottomley wrote:
> > >> > struct attribute_group {
> > >> >const char *name;
> > >> > + int (*filter_show)(struct kobj
On Oct 31, 2007 1:40 AM, Mark M. Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-30 13:25:43 -0500]:
> > On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 18:58 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > > James Bottomley wrote:
> > > >> > struct attribute_group {
> > > >> >const char
Hi James:
* James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-30 13:25:43 -0500]:
> On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 18:58 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > James Bottomley wrote:
> > >> > struct attribute_group {
> > >> >const char *name;
> > >> > + int (*filter_show
On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 13:25 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 18:58 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > James Bottomley wrote:
> > >> > struct attribute_group {
> > >> >const char *name;
> > >> > + int (*filter_show)(struct kobject *,
James Bottomley wrote:
> OK, so is this latest revision acceptable to everyone?
No complaint from me. (I'm more or less by accident in this thread
anyway. Once this feature is available in mainline, I may have use for
it in drivers/firewire/ though.) Thanks,
--
Stefan Richter
-=-=-=== =-=-
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 18:58 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> >> > struct attribute_group {
> >> > const char *name;
> >> > +int (*filter_show)(struct kobject *, int);
>
> > Actually, it returns a true/false value indicating
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:29:27 -0500,
James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 13:27 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > James Bottomley wrote:
> > > visibility and creation are the same thing, aren't they? An invisible
> > > attribute doesn't appear in the sysfs directory, so i
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:24:06 -0500,
James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can you determine which subset of the attributes you want just before
> > actually creating the group? Then you could do something like:
> >
> > create_group(grp, kobj)
> > {
> > grp->update_creation_mask(kobj)
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 18:58 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> >> > struct attribute_group {
> >> > const char *name;
> >> > +int (*filter_show)(struct kobject *, int);
>
> > Actually, it returns a true/false value indicating
James Bottomley wrote:
>> > struct attribute_group {
>> >const char *name;
>> > + int (*filter_show)(struct kobject *, int);
> Actually, it returns a true/false value indicating whether the given
> attribute should be displayed.
How about this:
int
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 12:28 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 18:27 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 11:57 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 17:54 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 10:16 -0500, James Bottomley wrot
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 13:27 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > visibility and creation are the same thing, aren't they? An invisible
> > attribute doesn't appear in the sysfs directory, so it's equivalent to
> > the file for it not being created.
>
>
> What about the case whe
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 18:27 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 11:57 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 17:54 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 10:16 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > > > struct attribute_group {
> > > > const char
James Bottomley wrote:
visibility and creation are the same thing, aren't they? An invisible
attribute doesn't appear in the sysfs directory, so it's equivalent to
the file for it not being created.
What about the case where it's visible at creation time, but then needs
to be made selectivel
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 11:57 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 17:54 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 10:16 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > struct attribute_group {
> > > const char *name;
> > > + int (*filter_show)(stru
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 18:18 +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:57:51 -0500,
> James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 17:54 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 10:16 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > This patch is a first pass
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:57:51 -0500,
James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 17:54 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 10:16 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > This patch is a first pass at adding a filter function to the group
> > > attributes, just to s
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 17:54 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 10:16 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > In the SCSI transport classes (and soon to be in the AEN event
> > subsystem) we have a lot of need for a grouping that doesn't include all
> > files in the group. We basically wan
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 10:16 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> In the SCSI transport classes (and soon to be in the AEN event
> subsystem) we have a lot of need for a grouping that doesn't include all
> files in the group. We basically want to show capability by which file
> is present. A classic ex
In the SCSI transport classes (and soon to be in the AEN event
subsystem) we have a lot of need for a grouping that doesn't include all
files in the group. We basically want to show capability by which file
is present. A classic example of this is the SPI transport class
connected to the 53c700 c
30 matches
Mail list logo
