[PATCH 2.6.12-rc4 3/3] (dynamic sysfs callbacks) device_attribute
greg at kroah.com
Wed May 11 22:28:05 CEST 2005
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 03:57:37PM -0400, Yani Ioannou wrote:
> On 5/11/05, Greg KH <greg at kroah.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 03:58:35AM -0400, Yani Ioannou wrote:
> > Sorry, but I need a real patch in email form so I can apply it. I can
> > handle a 300K+ email :)
> > Or you can break it up into smaller pieces, like one per major part of
> > the kernel. That is the preferred way.
> I'd like to break it up, but I think even broken up by major part of
> the kernel it one piece will still be too large since the majority of
> the changes take place in drivers & drivers/i2c and are very
> asymmetric :-(. I'll send you the patch inline privately for now.
No, please break it up. "too large" is a problem for someone trying to
review it too. If the i2c parts are too big, then split them up into
multiple patches too.
> > We should make a __ATTR macro instead, right?
> Well another __ATTR macro (e.g. ATTR_PRIVATE) would make declaring the
> new DEVICE_ATTR_PRIVATE macro, etc, easier.
Sorry, yes, that's what I ment.
> The question really is, is it better to just add that new parameter to
> the DEVICE_ATTR macro, or to declare a new DEVICE_ATTR_PRIVATE macro
> instead. The former obviously breaks a lot of code although my scripts
> can generate another large patch for that too...
No, use a new macro.
More information about the lm-sensors