- 10 4月, 2013 40 次提交
-
-
由 David Howells 提交于
Switch huge if-statement in __proc_file_read() around. This then puts the single line loop break immediately after the if-statement and allows us to de-indent the huge comment and make it take fewer lines. The code following the if-statement then follows naturally from the call to dp->read_proc(). Signed-off-by: NDavid Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Just reading - parsing the results is left alone (and unspeakably lousy). Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
it's opened read-only and never installed into any descriptor tables; fput() will do just as well. Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
no need to do that anymore... Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
misc device gets ->private_data pointing to struct miscdevice on open(), so we can use that to get to per-device structure instead of relying on file_operations being copied into it. Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 David Howells 提交于
Remove device_open/close() functions as they don't really do anything and remove Device_Open as it isn't counted atomically and the value isn't used. Signed-off-by: NDavid Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
-
由 David Howells 提交于
Kill create_proc_entry() in favour of create_proc_read_entry(), proc_create() and proc_create_data(). Signed-off-by: NDavid Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
-
由 David Howells 提交于
create_proc_entry() shouldn't be used. Rather proc_create_data() should be used. The proc_write() function is only used by #if'd out code, so delete it for now. Signed-off-by: NDavid Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
-
由 David Howells 提交于
Don't use create_proc_entry() in nubus_proc_subdir(). The files created aren't given any way to use them, so for the moment use create_proc_read_entry() with a NULL accessor and generate a compile-time warning. Signed-off-by: NDavid Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
-
由 David Howells 提交于
Adjust printk in create_proc_mconsole() to reflect it is now using proc_create() not create_proc_mconsole(). Signed-off-by: NDavid Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
use proc_create_data() rather than set ->data after the file has been created Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
... and don't bother with ->owner, while we are at it - procfs fops do not need it. Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
* check for proc_mkdir() failures * use remove_proc_subtree() Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Since the only thing in it the methods actually care about is variable id, just store that directly. Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
The only part of proc_dir_entry the code outside of fs/proc really cares about is PDE(inode)->data. Provide a helper for that; static inline for now, eventually will be moved to fs/proc, along with the knowledge of struct proc_dir_entry layout. Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Some of the ->show_info() instances really spew a lot; it's not a problem wrt correctness (seq_read() will grow buffer and call the sucker again), but in this case it makes sense to start with a somewhat bigger one - they often do exceed one page worth of output. Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Same as single_open(), but preallocates the buffer of given size. Doesn't make any sense for sizes up to PAGE_SIZE and doesn't make sense if output of show() exceeds PAGE_SIZE only rarely - seq_read() will take care of growing the buffer and redoing show(). If you _know_ that it will be large, it might make more sense to look into saner iterator, rather than go with single-shot one. If that's impossible, single_open_size() might be for you. Again, don't use that without a good reason; occasionally that's really the best way to go, but very often there are better solutions. Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
all users converted to ->show_info()/->write_info() Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-