[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next v3] xen-netback: Adding debugfs "io_ring_qX" files
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 07:43:16PM +0100, Zoltan Kiss wrote: > On 08/07/14 18:39, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > > > > >>+ return count; > >>+} > >>+ > >>+static int xenvif_dump_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp) > >>+{ > >>+ int ret; > >>+ void *queue = NULL; > >>+ > >>+ if (inode->i_private) > >>+ queue = inode->i_private; > >>+ ret = single_open(filp, xenvif_read_io_ring, queue); > >>+ filp->f_mode |= FMODE_PWRITE; > >>+ return ret; > >>+} > >>+ > >>+static const struct file_operations xenvif_dbg_io_ring_ops_fops = { > >>+ .owner = THIS_MODULE, > >>+ .open = xenvif_dump_open, > >>+ .read = seq_read, > >>+ .llseek = seq_lseek, > >>+ .release = single_release, > >>+ .write = xenvif_write_io_ring, > >>+}; > >>+ > >>+static void xenvif_debugfs_addif(struct xenvif_queue *queue) > >>+{ > >>+ struct dentry *pfile; > >>+ struct xenvif *vif = queue->vif; > >>+ int i; > >>+ > >>+ if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(xen_netback_dbg_root)) > >>+ return; > > > >I am curious to how you tested this patch, as my reading of > >the code above would imply that when xen_netback_dbg_root is > >initialized - we won't continue within this function? > Indeed, I've just copy-pasted that snippet you wrote in your prev mail and I > haven't tried it out, as it was a very small change. I'll fix it. > > >>+ > >> static int netback_remove(struct xenbus_device *dev) > >> { > >> struct backend_info *be = dev_get_drvdata(&dev->dev); > >>@@ -246,8 +413,12 @@ static void backend_create_xenvif(struct backend_info > >>*be) > >> > >> static void backend_disconnect(struct backend_info *be) > >> { > >>- if (be->vif) > >>+ if (be->vif) { > >>+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS > >>+ xenvif_debugfs_delif(be->vif); > >>+#endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_FS */ > > > >Why don't you just leave it as it (without the #ifdef) and add an > >empty function for the #else CONFIG_DEBUG_FS like: > > > >#else > >static inline void xenvif_debugfs_addif(struct xenvif_queue *queue) {} > >static inline void xenvif_debugfs_delif(struct xenvif *vif) {} > >#endif > It wouldn't change the end result, but from the code reader's point of view > the current way is a little bit better, as (s)he doesn't need to check the > declaration to realize it has effect only if that config option is enabled. I disagree (and the Linux kernel has numerous example for this - thought most of this is hidden in the headers so that the .C code has the minimum amount of #ifdef) - however ultimately it is Ian C decision on which way this should go. > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |