Re: [RFA][PATCH 1/8] seq_file: Rename seq_overflow() to seq_has_overflowed() and make public

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 20:10 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:53:30 -0700
> Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 19:42 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:08:36 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 17:56 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > > +A true return from seq_has_overflowed means that the seq_file buffer is full
> > > > > +and further output will be discarded.
> > > > Perhaps the description is a bit unclear here.
> > > > Doesn't a return of true to seq_has_overflowed mean that
> > > > more characters have already been written than the buffer
> > > > can accept?
> > > Actually, right now the comment is correct and the name is misleading.
> > > But I have a patch that will make the comment incorrect (and will be
> > > fixed) and the name correct.
> > > 
> > > But since seq_has_overflowed() is to be used throughout the kernel, I
> > > didn't want to have to go do patches all over again for a temporary
> > > misnomer.
> > 
> > I think it'd be better if the first submission
> > of the function has the correct operation for
> > the name.
> 
> I'm hoping that both of these will make it into 3.19, so it really
> doesn't matter the order. I'm working on this patch first, because, as
> you said earlier, it is important to get the call to
> seq_has_overflowed() out there.

So, given the necessary sequence of adding this new
function before any other change is made, please make
this function correct at the get-go.