Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:54:40 +0100 | From | Rob Jones <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |