[2/2] drm/i915/gvt: Avoid full proxy f_ops for vgpu_status debug attributes

  Using DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE macro with the debugfs_create_file()
function adds the overhead of introducing a proxy file operation
functions to wrap the original read/write inside file removal protection
functions. This adds significant overhead in terms of introducing and
managing the proxy factory file operations structure and function
wrapping at runtime.
As a replacement, a combination of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE macro paired
with debugfs_create_file_unsafe() is suggested to be used instead.  The
DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE utilises debugfs_file_get() and
debugfs_file_put() wrappers to protect the original read and write
function calls for the debug attributes. There is no need for any
runtime proxy file operations to be managed by the debugfs core.
Following coccicheck make command helped identify this change:

make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci

Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
  

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:00:12AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> Using DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE macro with the debugfs_create_file()
> function adds the overhead of introducing a proxy file operation
> functions to wrap the original read/write inside file removal protection
> functions. This adds significant overhead in terms of introducing and
> managing the proxy factory file operations structure and function
> wrapping at runtime.
> As a replacement, a combination of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE macro paired
> with debugfs_create_file_unsafe() is suggested to be used instead.  The
> DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE utilises debugfs_file_get() and
> debugfs_file_put() wrappers to protect the original read and write
> function calls for the debug attributes. There is no need for any
> runtime proxy file operations to be managed by the debugfs core.
> Following coccicheck make command helped identify this change:
> 
> make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
> 
> Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>

I believe these 2 gvt cases could be done in one patch.
But anyways,

Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>

for both patches... and will leave these 2 patches for gvt folks
to apply. Unless they ack and I apply in the drm-intel along with the other ones.

> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> index 03f081c3d9a4..baccbf1761b7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int vgpu_status_get(void *data, u64 *val)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
>  
>  /**
>   * intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu - register debugfs entries for a vGPU
> @@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ void intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu)
>  			    &vgpu_mmio_diff_fops);
>  	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("scan_nonprivbb", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
>  				   &vgpu_scan_nonprivbb_fops);
> -	debugfs_create_file("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> -			    &vgpu_status_fops);
> +	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> +				   &vgpu_status_fops);
>  }
>  
>  /**
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 
> 
>
  

On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 01:49:57PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:00:12AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > Using DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE macro with the debugfs_create_file()
> > function adds the overhead of introducing a proxy file operation
> > functions to wrap the original read/write inside file removal protection
> > functions. This adds significant overhead in terms of introducing and
> > managing the proxy factory file operations structure and function
> > wrapping at runtime.
> > As a replacement, a combination of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE macro paired
> > with debugfs_create_file_unsafe() is suggested to be used instead.  The
> > DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE utilises debugfs_file_get() and
> > debugfs_file_put() wrappers to protect the original read and write
> > function calls for the debug attributes. There is no need for any
> > runtime proxy file operations to be managed by the debugfs core.
> > Following coccicheck make command helped identify this change:
> > 
> > make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
> 
> I believe these 2 gvt cases could be done in one patch.
> But anyways,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> 
> for both patches... and will leave these 2 patches for gvt folks
> to apply. Unless they ack and I apply in the drm-intel along with the other ones.

Actually, could you please address the checkpatch issues before we can push?
Sorry about that, but just noticed now when I was going to push the other ones.

> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c | 6 +++---
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > index 03f081c3d9a4..baccbf1761b7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int vgpu_status_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> >  
> >  /**
> >   * intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu - register debugfs entries for a vGPU
> > @@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ void intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu)
> >  			    &vgpu_mmio_diff_fops);
> >  	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("scan_nonprivbb", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> >  				   &vgpu_scan_nonprivbb_fops);
> > -	debugfs_create_file("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > -			    &vgpu_status_fops);
> > +	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > +				   &vgpu_status_fops);
> >  }
> >  
> >  /**
> > -- 
> > 2.34.1
> > 
> > 
> >
  

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 05:02:02AM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 01:49:57PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:00:12AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > > Using DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE macro with the debugfs_create_file()
> > > function adds the overhead of introducing a proxy file operation
> > > functions to wrap the original read/write inside file removal protection
> > > functions. This adds significant overhead in terms of introducing and
> > > managing the proxy factory file operations structure and function
> > > wrapping at runtime.
> > > As a replacement, a combination of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE macro paired
> > > with debugfs_create_file_unsafe() is suggested to be used instead.  The
> > > DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE utilises debugfs_file_get() and
> > > debugfs_file_put() wrappers to protect the original read and write
> > > function calls for the debug attributes. There is no need for any
> > > runtime proxy file operations to be managed by the debugfs core.
> > > Following coccicheck make command helped identify this change:
> > > 
> > > make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
> > 
> > I believe these 2 gvt cases could be done in one patch.
> > But anyways,
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > 
> > for both patches... and will leave these 2 patches for gvt folks
> > to apply. Unless they ack and I apply in the drm-intel along with the other ones.
> 
> Actually, could you please address the checkpatch issues before we can push?
> Sorry about that, but just noticed now when I was going to push the other ones.

Hello Rodrigo,
The checkpatch warning is associated with the long "make coccicheck ..." command
in the commit message. It is not part of the code, so is should not be carried
forward into the code base.
If you still want me to correct it, I will need to split it into two lines which
I think still violates the commit description guidelines.

Let me know what you think.

Thank you,
./drv

> 
> > 
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c | 6 +++---
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > index 03f081c3d9a4..baccbf1761b7 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int vgpu_status_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> > >  	return 0;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > > +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > >  
> > >  /**
> > >   * intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu - register debugfs entries for a vGPU
> > > @@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ void intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu)
> > >  			    &vgpu_mmio_diff_fops);
> > >  	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("scan_nonprivbb", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > >  				   &vgpu_scan_nonprivbb_fops);
> > > -	debugfs_create_file("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > -			    &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > +	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > +				   &vgpu_status_fops);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  /**
> > > -- 
> > > 2.34.1
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
  

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 08:23:49PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 05:02:02AM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 01:49:57PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:00:12AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > > > Using DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE macro with the debugfs_create_file()
> > > > function adds the overhead of introducing a proxy file operation
> > > > functions to wrap the original read/write inside file removal protection
> > > > functions. This adds significant overhead in terms of introducing and
> > > > managing the proxy factory file operations structure and function
> > > > wrapping at runtime.
> > > > As a replacement, a combination of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE macro paired
> > > > with debugfs_create_file_unsafe() is suggested to be used instead.  The
> > > > DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE utilises debugfs_file_get() and
> > > > debugfs_file_put() wrappers to protect the original read and write
> > > > function calls for the debug attributes. There is no need for any
> > > > runtime proxy file operations to be managed by the debugfs core.
> > > > Following coccicheck make command helped identify this change:
> > > > 
> > > > make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
> > > 
> > > I believe these 2 gvt cases could be done in one patch.
> > > But anyways,
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > > 
> > > for both patches... and will leave these 2 patches for gvt folks
> > > to apply. Unless they ack and I apply in the drm-intel along with the other ones.
> > 
> > Actually, could you please address the checkpatch issues before we can push?
> > Sorry about that, but just noticed now when I was going to push the other ones.
> 
> Hello Rodrigo,
> The checkpatch warning is associated with the long "make coccicheck ..." command
> in the commit message. It is not part of the code, so is should not be carried
> forward into the code base.
> If you still want me to correct it, I will need to split it into two lines which
> I think still violates the commit description guidelines.

This part I would just ignore or fix myself while merging. But the next one about
the parenthesis alignment need to be fixed in the code so we need another version.
Since we try to avoid touching the code between CI and merge.

Then, since you need to change that, while changing that, also please break
the coccinelle line in the commit msg.

I'd appreciate to have the patch for the pxp as well :)

Thanks a lot,
Rodrigo.


> 
> Let me know what you think.
> 
> Thank you,
> ./drv
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c | 6 +++---
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > index 03f081c3d9a4..baccbf1761b7 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int vgpu_status_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> > > >  	return 0;
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > > > +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > > >  
> > > >  /**
> > > >   * intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu - register debugfs entries for a vGPU
> > > > @@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ void intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu)
> > > >  			    &vgpu_mmio_diff_fops);
> > > >  	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("scan_nonprivbb", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > >  				   &vgpu_scan_nonprivbb_fops);
> > > > -	debugfs_create_file("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > -			    &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > > +	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > +				   &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > >  /**
> > > > -- 
> > > > 2.34.1
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> 
>
  

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:00:11AM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > Actually, could you please address the checkpatch issues before we can push?
> > > Sorry about that, but just noticed now when I was going to push the other ones.
> > 
> > Hello Rodrigo,
> > The checkpatch warning is associated with the long "make coccicheck ..." command
> > in the commit message. It is not part of the code, so is should not be carried
> > forward into the code base.
> > If you still want me to correct it, I will need to split it into two lines which
> > I think still violates the commit description guidelines.
> 
> This part I would just ignore or fix myself while merging. But the next one about
> the parenthesis alignment need to be fixed in the code so we need another version.
> Since we try to avoid touching the code between CI and merge.

I am sorry, but I am unable to locate the "second checkpatch complaint" you are
referring to. I have received only the following from the checkpatch robot:

== Summary ==

Error: dim checkpatch failed
4c95e9b71212 drm/i915/gvt: Avoid full proxy f_ops for scan_nonprivbb debug attributes
-:21: WARNING:COMMIT_LOG_LONG_LINE: Possible unwrapped commit description (prefer a maximum 75 chars per line)
#21:
make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci

total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 22 lines checked
33d68a01cad3 drm/i915/gvt: Avoid full proxy f_ops for vgpu_status debug attributes
-:21: WARNING:COMMIT_LOG_LONG_LINE: Possible unwrapped commit description (prefer a maximum 75 chars per line)
#21:
make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci

total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 18 lines checked

===============================

> 
> Then, since you need to change that, while changing that, also please break
> the coccinelle line in the commit msg.
> 
> I'd appreciate to have the patch for the pxp as well :)

Sure. As mentioned in the other thread, I am looking into it and would submit a
patch accordingly.

Thank you,
./drv

> 
> Thanks a lot,
> Rodrigo.
> 
> 
> > 
> > Let me know what you think.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > ./drv
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c | 6 +++---
> > > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > index 03f081c3d9a4..baccbf1761b7 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int vgpu_status_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> > > > >  	return 0;
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  
> > > > > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > > > > +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > > > >  
> > > > >  /**
> > > > >   * intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu - register debugfs entries for a vGPU
> > > > > @@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ void intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu)
> > > > >  			    &vgpu_mmio_diff_fops);
> > > > >  	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("scan_nonprivbb", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > >  				   &vgpu_scan_nonprivbb_fops);
> > > > > -	debugfs_create_file("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > > -			    &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > > > +	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > > +				   &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  
> > > > >  /**
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > 2.34.1
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > 
> >
  

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 08:46:00PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:00:11AM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > > Actually, could you please address the checkpatch issues before we can push?
> > > > Sorry about that, but just noticed now when I was going to push the other ones.
> > > 
> > > Hello Rodrigo,
> > > The checkpatch warning is associated with the long "make coccicheck ..." command
> > > in the commit message. It is not part of the code, so is should not be carried
> > > forward into the code base.
> > > If you still want me to correct it, I will need to split it into two lines which
> > > I think still violates the commit description guidelines.
> > 
> > This part I would just ignore or fix myself while merging. But the next one about
> > the parenthesis alignment need to be fixed in the code so we need another version.
> > Since we try to avoid touching the code between CI and merge.
> 
> I am sorry, but I am unable to locate the "second checkpatch complaint" you are
> referring to. I have received only the following from the checkpatch robot:
> 
> == Summary ==
> 
> Error: dim checkpatch failed
> 4c95e9b71212 drm/i915/gvt: Avoid full proxy f_ops for scan_nonprivbb debug attributes
> -:21: WARNING:COMMIT_LOG_LONG_LINE: Possible unwrapped commit description (prefer a maximum 75 chars per line)
> #21:
> make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
> 
> total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 22 lines checked
> 33d68a01cad3 drm/i915/gvt: Avoid full proxy f_ops for vgpu_status debug attributes
> -:21: WARNING:COMMIT_LOG_LONG_LINE: Possible unwrapped commit description (prefer a maximum 75 chars per line)
> #21:
> make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
> 
> total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 18 lines checked
> 

doh, my bad! this gvt patch is indeed right. up to gvt folks to modify this line
when merging or to ignore...

The problem I mentioned was in the other series. Sorry for the noise.

but for the record:

-:47: CHECK:PARENTHESIS_ALIGNMENT: Alignment should match open parenthesis
#47: FILE: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_drrs.c:386:
+	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("i915_drrs_ctl", 0644, crtc->base.debugfs_entry,
+				    crtc, &intel_drrs_debugfs_ctl_fops);


> ===============================
> 
> > 
> > Then, since you need to change that, while changing that, also please break
> > the coccinelle line in the commit msg.
> > 
> > I'd appreciate to have the patch for the pxp as well :)
> 
> Sure. As mentioned in the other thread, I am looking into it and would submit a
> patch accordingly.
> 
> Thank you,
> ./drv
> 
> > 
> > Thanks a lot,
> > Rodrigo.
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Let me know what you think.
> > > 
> > > Thank you,
> > > ./drv
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c | 6 +++---
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > > index 03f081c3d9a4..baccbf1761b7 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int vgpu_status_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> > > > > >  	return 0;
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > > > > > +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >  /**
> > > > > >   * intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu - register debugfs entries for a vGPU
> > > > > > @@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ void intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu)
> > > > > >  			    &vgpu_mmio_diff_fops);
> > > > > >  	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("scan_nonprivbb", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > > >  				   &vgpu_scan_nonprivbb_fops);
> > > > > > -	debugfs_create_file("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > > > -			    &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > > > > +	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > > > +				   &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >  /**
> > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > 2.34.1
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> 
>
  

On 2023.01.10 13:49:57 -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:00:12AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > Using DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE macro with the debugfs_create_file()
> > function adds the overhead of introducing a proxy file operation
> > functions to wrap the original read/write inside file removal protection
> > functions. This adds significant overhead in terms of introducing and
> > managing the proxy factory file operations structure and function
> > wrapping at runtime.
> > As a replacement, a combination of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE macro paired
> > with debugfs_create_file_unsafe() is suggested to be used instead.  The
> > DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE utilises debugfs_file_get() and
> > debugfs_file_put() wrappers to protect the original read and write
> > function calls for the debug attributes. There is no need for any
> > runtime proxy file operations to be managed by the debugfs core.
> > Following coccicheck make command helped identify this change:
> > 
> > make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
> 
> I believe these 2 gvt cases could be done in one patch.
> But anyways,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> 
> for both patches... and will leave these 2 patches for gvt folks
> to apply. Unless they ack and I apply in the drm-intel along with the other ones.
>

yeah, they're fine with me, feel free to apply them directly.

Acked-by: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>

thanks!

> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c | 6 +++---
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > index 03f081c3d9a4..baccbf1761b7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int vgpu_status_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> >  
> >  /**
> >   * intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu - register debugfs entries for a vGPU
> > @@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ void intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu)
> >  			    &vgpu_mmio_diff_fops);
> >  	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("scan_nonprivbb", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> >  				   &vgpu_scan_nonprivbb_fops);
> > -	debugfs_create_file("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > -			    &vgpu_status_fops);
> > +	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > +				   &vgpu_status_fops);
> >  }
> >  
> >  /**
> > -- 
> > 2.34.1
> > 
> > 
> >
  

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 01:44:46PM +0800, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
> On 2023.01.10 13:49:57 -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:00:12AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > > Using DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE macro with the debugfs_create_file()
> > > function adds the overhead of introducing a proxy file operation
> > > functions to wrap the original read/write inside file removal protection
> > > functions. This adds significant overhead in terms of introducing and
> > > managing the proxy factory file operations structure and function
> > > wrapping at runtime.
> > > As a replacement, a combination of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE macro paired
> > > with debugfs_create_file_unsafe() is suggested to be used instead.  The
> > > DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE utilises debugfs_file_get() and
> > > debugfs_file_put() wrappers to protect the original read and write
> > > function calls for the debug attributes. There is no need for any
> > > runtime proxy file operations to be managed by the debugfs core.
> > > Following coccicheck make command helped identify this change:
> > > 
> > > make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
> > 
> > I believe these 2 gvt cases could be done in one patch.
> > But anyways,
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > 
> > for both patches... and will leave these 2 patches for gvt folks
> > to apply. Unless they ack and I apply in the drm-intel along with the other ones.
> >
> 
> yeah, they're fine with me, feel free to apply them directly.
> 
> Acked-by: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>

Unfortunately I got some conflicts when trying to apply on drm-intel-next.

We probably need a new version, and probably through gvt branches it
will be easier to handle conflicts if they appear.

> 
> thanks!
> 
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c | 6 +++---
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > index 03f081c3d9a4..baccbf1761b7 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int vgpu_status_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> > >  	return 0;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > > +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > >  
> > >  /**
> > >   * intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu - register debugfs entries for a vGPU
> > > @@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ void intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu)
> > >  			    &vgpu_mmio_diff_fops);
> > >  	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("scan_nonprivbb", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > >  				   &vgpu_scan_nonprivbb_fops);
> > > -	debugfs_create_file("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > -			    &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > +	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > +				   &vgpu_status_fops);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  /**
> > > -- 
> > > 2.34.1
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
  

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 02:29:37PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 01:44:46PM +0800, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
> > On 2023.01.10 13:49:57 -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:00:12AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > > > Using DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE macro with the debugfs_create_file()
> > > > function adds the overhead of introducing a proxy file operation
> > > > functions to wrap the original read/write inside file removal protection
> > > > functions. This adds significant overhead in terms of introducing and
> > > > managing the proxy factory file operations structure and function
> > > > wrapping at runtime.
> > > > As a replacement, a combination of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE macro paired
> > > > with debugfs_create_file_unsafe() is suggested to be used instead.  The
> > > > DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE utilises debugfs_file_get() and
> > > > debugfs_file_put() wrappers to protect the original read and write
> > > > function calls for the debug attributes. There is no need for any
> > > > runtime proxy file operations to be managed by the debugfs core.
> > > > Following coccicheck make command helped identify this change:
> > > > 
> > > > make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
> > > 
> > > I believe these 2 gvt cases could be done in one patch.
> > > But anyways,
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > > 
> > > for both patches... and will leave these 2 patches for gvt folks
> > > to apply. Unless they ack and I apply in the drm-intel along with the other ones.
> > >
> > 
> > yeah, they're fine with me, feel free to apply them directly.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>
> 
> Unfortunately I got some conflicts when trying to apply on drm-intel-next.
> 
> We probably need a new version, and probably through gvt branches it
> will be easier to handle conflicts if they appear.

Hello Rodrigo,
Sure. I will send in a new version. I am current using linux-next git repo as my
remote origin [tag 20230113]. Are there any specific instruction/location from
where I should access the gvt branch?

Thank you.

> 
> > 
> > thanks!
> > 
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c | 6 +++---
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > index 03f081c3d9a4..baccbf1761b7 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int vgpu_status_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> > > >  	return 0;
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > > > +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > > >  
> > > >  /**
> > > >   * intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu - register debugfs entries for a vGPU
> > > > @@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ void intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu)
> > > >  			    &vgpu_mmio_diff_fops);
> > > >  	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("scan_nonprivbb", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > >  				   &vgpu_scan_nonprivbb_fops);
> > > > -	debugfs_create_file("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > -			    &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > > +	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > +				   &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > >  /**
> > > > -- 
> > > > 2.34.1
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> 
>
  

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:18:11AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 02:29:37PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 01:44:46PM +0800, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
> > > On 2023.01.10 13:49:57 -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:00:12AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > > > > Using DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE macro with the debugfs_create_file()
> > > > > function adds the overhead of introducing a proxy file operation
> > > > > functions to wrap the original read/write inside file removal protection
> > > > > functions. This adds significant overhead in terms of introducing and
> > > > > managing the proxy factory file operations structure and function
> > > > > wrapping at runtime.
> > > > > As a replacement, a combination of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE macro paired
> > > > > with debugfs_create_file_unsafe() is suggested to be used instead.  The
> > > > > DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE utilises debugfs_file_get() and
> > > > > debugfs_file_put() wrappers to protect the original read and write
> > > > > function calls for the debug attributes. There is no need for any
> > > > > runtime proxy file operations to be managed by the debugfs core.
> > > > > Following coccicheck make command helped identify this change:
> > > > > 
> > > > > make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
> > > > 
> > > > I believe these 2 gvt cases could be done in one patch.
> > > > But anyways,
> > > > 
> > > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > > > 
> > > > for both patches... and will leave these 2 patches for gvt folks
> > > > to apply. Unless they ack and I apply in the drm-intel along with the other ones.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > yeah, they're fine with me, feel free to apply them directly.
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > Unfortunately I got some conflicts when trying to apply on drm-intel-next.
> > 
> > We probably need a new version, and probably through gvt branches it
> > will be easier to handle conflicts if they appear.
> 
> Hello Rodrigo,
> Sure. I will send in a new version. I am current using linux-next git repo as my
> remote origin [tag 20230113]. Are there any specific instruction/location from
> where I should access the gvt branch?

https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux.git

but with the linux-next your patch is probably right for them.

> 
> Thank you.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > thanks!
> > > 
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c | 6 +++---
> > > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > index 03f081c3d9a4..baccbf1761b7 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int vgpu_status_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> > > > >  	return 0;
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  
> > > > > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > > > > +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > > > >  
> > > > >  /**
> > > > >   * intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu - register debugfs entries for a vGPU
> > > > > @@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ void intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu)
> > > > >  			    &vgpu_mmio_diff_fops);
> > > > >  	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("scan_nonprivbb", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > >  				   &vgpu_scan_nonprivbb_fops);
> > > > > -	debugfs_create_file("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > > -			    &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > > > +	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > > +				   &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  
> > > > >  /**
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > 2.34.1
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>
  

On 2023.01.18 11:44:55 -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:18:11AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 02:29:37PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 01:44:46PM +0800, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
> > > > On 2023.01.10 13:49:57 -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:00:12AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > > > > > Using DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE macro with the debugfs_create_file()
> > > > > > function adds the overhead of introducing a proxy file operation
> > > > > > functions to wrap the original read/write inside file removal protection
> > > > > > functions. This adds significant overhead in terms of introducing and
> > > > > > managing the proxy factory file operations structure and function
> > > > > > wrapping at runtime.
> > > > > > As a replacement, a combination of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE macro paired
> > > > > > with debugfs_create_file_unsafe() is suggested to be used instead.  The
> > > > > > DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE utilises debugfs_file_get() and
> > > > > > debugfs_file_put() wrappers to protect the original read and write
> > > > > > function calls for the debug attributes. There is no need for any
> > > > > > runtime proxy file operations to be managed by the debugfs core.
> > > > > > Following coccicheck make command helped identify this change:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > I believe these 2 gvt cases could be done in one patch.
> > > > > But anyways,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > for both patches... and will leave these 2 patches for gvt folks
> > > > > to apply. Unless they ack and I apply in the drm-intel along with the other ones.
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > yeah, they're fine with me, feel free to apply them directly.
> > > > 
> > > > Acked-by: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately I got some conflicts when trying to apply on drm-intel-next.
> > > 
> > > We probably need a new version, and probably through gvt branches it
> > > will be easier to handle conflicts if they appear.
> > 
> > Hello Rodrigo,
> > Sure. I will send in a new version. I am current using linux-next git repo as my
> > remote origin [tag 20230113]. Are there any specific instruction/location from
> > where I should access the gvt branch?
> 
> https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux.git
> 
> but with the linux-next your patch is probably right for them.
> 

yeah, I think so as currently from last pull request I don't have
other updates in gvt tree, maybe it's just d-i-n hasn't included
recent gvt change.

I saw Deepak sent a new one, feel free to apply. Let me know if
there's still any issue.

thanks!

> > > > 
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c | 6 +++---
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > > index 03f081c3d9a4..baccbf1761b7 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int vgpu_status_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> > > > > >  	return 0;
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > > > > > +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >  /**
> > > > > >   * intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu - register debugfs entries for a vGPU
> > > > > > @@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ void intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu)
> > > > > >  			    &vgpu_mmio_diff_fops);
> > > > > >  	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("scan_nonprivbb", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > > >  				   &vgpu_scan_nonprivbb_fops);
> > > > > > -	debugfs_create_file("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > > > -			    &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > > > > +	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > > > +				   &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >  /**
> > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > 2.34.1
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> >
  

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 09:26:20AM +0800, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
> On 2023.01.18 11:44:55 -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:18:11AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 02:29:37PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 01:44:46PM +0800, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
> > > > > On 2023.01.10 13:49:57 -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:00:12AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > > > > > > Using DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE macro with the debugfs_create_file()
> > > > > > > function adds the overhead of introducing a proxy file operation
> > > > > > > functions to wrap the original read/write inside file removal protection
> > > > > > > functions. This adds significant overhead in terms of introducing and
> > > > > > > managing the proxy factory file operations structure and function
> > > > > > > wrapping at runtime.
> > > > > > > As a replacement, a combination of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE macro paired
> > > > > > > with debugfs_create_file_unsafe() is suggested to be used instead.  The
> > > > > > > DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE utilises debugfs_file_get() and
> > > > > > > debugfs_file_put() wrappers to protect the original read and write
> > > > > > > function calls for the debug attributes. There is no need for any
> > > > > > > runtime proxy file operations to be managed by the debugfs core.
> > > > > > > Following coccicheck make command helped identify this change:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I believe these 2 gvt cases could be done in one patch.
> > > > > > But anyways,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > for both patches... and will leave these 2 patches for gvt folks
> > > > > > to apply. Unless they ack and I apply in the drm-intel along with the other ones.
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > yeah, they're fine with me, feel free to apply them directly.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Acked-by: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Unfortunately I got some conflicts when trying to apply on drm-intel-next.
> > > > 
> > > > We probably need a new version, and probably through gvt branches it
> > > > will be easier to handle conflicts if they appear.
> > > 
> > > Hello Rodrigo,
> > > Sure. I will send in a new version. I am current using linux-next git repo as my
> > > remote origin [tag 20230113]. Are there any specific instruction/location from
> > > where I should access the gvt branch?
> > 
> > https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux.git
> > 
> > but with the linux-next your patch is probably right for them.
> > 
> 
> yeah, I think so as currently from last pull request I don't have
> other updates in gvt tree, maybe it's just d-i-n hasn't included
> recent gvt change.
> 
> I saw Deepak sent a new one, feel free to apply. Let me know if
> there's still any issue.

It still doesn't apply in drm-intel-next.
Could you please take it through your branch?

> 
> thanks!
> 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c | 6 +++---
> > > > > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > > > index 03f081c3d9a4..baccbf1761b7 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > > > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int vgpu_status_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> > > > > > >  	return 0;
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > > > > > > +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >  /**
> > > > > > >   * intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu - register debugfs entries for a vGPU
> > > > > > > @@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ void intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu)
> > > > > > >  			    &vgpu_mmio_diff_fops);
> > > > > > >  	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("scan_nonprivbb", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > > > >  				   &vgpu_scan_nonprivbb_fops);
> > > > > > > -	debugfs_create_file("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > > > > -			    &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > > > > > +	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > > > > +				   &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >  /**
> > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > 2.34.1
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > >
  

On 2023.01.19 17:05:56 -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> 
> It still doesn't apply in drm-intel-next.
> Could you please take it through your branch?
> 

sure, I'll pick it.