As previous discussion, maintainers think that patch-level sysfs interface is the
only acceptable way to maintain the information of the order that klp_patch is 
applied to the system.

However, the previous patch introduce klp_ops into klp_func is a optimization 
methods of the patch introducing 'using' feature to klp_func.

But now, we don't support 'using' feature to klp_func and make 'klp_ops' patch
not necessary.

Therefore, this new version is only introduce the sysfs feature of klp_patch 
'stack_order'.

V1 -> V2:
1. According to the suggestion from Petr, to make the meaning more clear, rename
'order' to 'stack_order'.
2. According to the suggestion from Petr and Miroslav, this patch now move the 
calculating process to stack_order_show function. Adding klp_mutex lock protection.

Regards.
Wardenjohn.

On Wed, 2024-09-25 at 14:40 +0800, Wardenjohn wrote:
> As previous discussion, maintainers think that patch-level sysfs
> interface is the
> only acceptable way to maintain the information of the order that
> klp_patch is 
> applied to the system.
> 
> However, the previous patch introduce klp_ops into klp_func is a
> optimization 
> methods of the patch introducing 'using' feature to klp_func.
> 
> But now, we don't support 'using' feature to klp_func and make
> 'klp_ops' patch
> not necessary.
> 
> Therefore, this new version is only introduce the sysfs feature of
> klp_patch 
> 'stack_order'.

The approach seems ok to me, but I would like to see selftests for this
new attribute. We have been trying to add more and more selftests for
existing known behavior, so IMO adding a new attribute should contain a
new test to exercise the correct behavior.

Other than that, for the series:

 Acked-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@suse.com>

> 
> V1 -> V2:
> 1. According to the suggestion from Petr, to make the meaning more
> clear, rename
> 'order' to 'stack_order'.
> 2. According to the suggestion from Petr and Miroslav, this patch now
> move the 
> calculating process to stack_order_show function. Adding klp_mutex
> lock protection.
> 
> Regards.
> Wardenjohn.
> 

> On Sep 25, 2024, at 21:08, Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@suse.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2024-09-25 at 14:40 +0800, Wardenjohn wrote:
>> As previous discussion, maintainers think that patch-level sysfs
>> interface is the
>> only acceptable way to maintain the information of the order that
>> klp_patch is 
>> applied to the system.
>> 
>> However, the previous patch introduce klp_ops into klp_func is a
>> optimization 
>> methods of the patch introducing 'using' feature to klp_func.
>> 
>> But now, we don't support 'using' feature to klp_func and make
>> 'klp_ops' patch
>> not necessary.
>> 
>> Therefore, this new version is only introduce the sysfs feature of
>> klp_patch 
>> 'stack_order'.
> 
> The approach seems ok to me, but I would like to see selftests for this
> new attribute. We have been trying to add more and more selftests for
> existing known behavior, so IMO adding a new attribute should contain a
> new test to exercise the correct behavior.
> 
> Other than that, for the series:
> 
> Acked-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@suse.com>
> 

Hi, Macros!

Thanks a lot.

I will add selftest case for it as soon as possible.

Regards.
Wardenjohn.

(This email is resent because it seemed not sent to LKML...)