From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH RESUBMIT 1/2] fs/seq_file: Create new function seq_open_init() Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:54:40 +0100 Message-ID: <542456E0.1040404@codethink.co.uk> References: <1411557356-10673-1-git-send-email-rob.jones@codethink.co.uk> <1411557356-10673-2-git-send-email-rob.jones@codethink.co.uk> <20140924143904.b6f12611013876253d8ac50a@linux-foundation.org> <5423DBED.4090306@codethink.co.uk> <20140925105033.ae4684eef16b5a323b9dbdd6@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rdunlap@infradead.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@codethink.co.uk, keescook@chromium.org, penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp To: Andrew Morton Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140925105033.ae4684eef16b5a323b9dbdd6@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 25/09/14 18:50, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:10:05 +0100 Rob Jones wrote: > >>> A global exported-to-modules interface should be documented, please. >>> Especially when it has a void* argument. seq_file.c is patchy - some >>> of it is documented, some of it uses the read-programmers-mind >>> approach. >> >> I have included documentation as the second patch. Would it have been >> better to include them in a single patch? I didn't do that because >> seq_file and Documentation have different maintainers. I'm still >> learning the protocols here. > > A single patch would be OK. > > Documentation/ is nice, but I don't think people think to look there. > Some kerneldoc within the .c would be a good addition. Now is a good time, can you point me at an instance of good practice of this? > >>> __seq_open_private() has >>> void *private; >>> >>> single_open() has >>> void *data >>> >>> And now seq_open_init() has >>> void *p >>> >>> but these all refer to the same thing. Can we have a bit of >>> consistency in the naming please? I suggest "private", to match >>> the seq_file field. >> >> A valid point and I can easily make the change but fixing single_open() >> would mean that the patch is addressing two issues, is that acceptable? >> Another protocol question, sorry. > > I guess switch this patch to use "private" then a second one to fix > single_open(). > > > -- Rob Jones Codethink Ltd mailto:rob.jones@codethink.co.uk tel:+44 161 236 5575