lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RESUBMIT 1/2] fs/seq_file: Create new function seq_open_init()


On 25/09/14 18:50, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:10:05 +0100 Rob Jones <rob.jones@codethink.co.uk> 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-25 20:21    [W:0.043 / U:0.388 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site