From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754803AbaHGBH2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2014 21:07:28 -0400 Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:37797 "EHLO out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754416AbaHGBH0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2014 21:07:26 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Rob Jones Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@lists.codethink.co.uk, ian.molton@codethink.co.uk, Al Viro References: <1406655593-12626-1-git-send-email-rob.jones@codethink.co.uk> <20140806160259.GR18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <53E254F1.30605@codethink.co.uk> <20140806195312.GS18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 18:03:32 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20140806195312.GS18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (Al Viro's message of "Wed, 6 Aug 2014 20:53:12 +0100") Message-ID: <87d2cdp0uz.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1/CKQm/qjwXPAmLW9kEkhPaXbod7G+ueqM= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 98.234.51.111 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -0.0 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 5 to 20% * [score: 0.0677] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa04 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa04 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Rob Jones X-Spam-Relay-Country: Subject: Re: [PATCH] seq_file: Allow private data to be supplied on seq_open X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:58:17 -0700) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Al Viro writes: > On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 05:16:49PM +0100, Rob Jones wrote: > >> I'm not quite sure I understand your meaning when you say "via seq_open" >> though, that function call format needs to stay the same or lots of >> code will break, so I can't just add the third parameter on the end. >> (C++ does have *some* advantages!) Can you clarify, please? > > seq_open_private() can be implemented as call of seq_open() + > assignment... This is why I object to the name seq_open_priv() for the new code. seq_open_private() is already implemented and base on seq_open(). And the names are close enough together it is confusing :( Eric