linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESUBMIT 1/2] fs/seq_file: Create new function seq_open

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:39:29 +0100
From:	Rob Jones <rob.jones@...ethink.co.uk>
To:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...ethink.co.uk, keescook@...omium.org,
	penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESUBMIT 1/2] fs/seq_file: Create new function seq_open_init()


On 25/09/14 15:49, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 09/25/14 02:10, Rob Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24/09/14 22:39, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:15:55 +0100 Rob Jones <rob.jones@...ethink.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Add a new function to help reduce boilerplate code.
>>>>
>>>> This is a wrapper function for seq_open() that will simplify the code in a
>>>> significant number of cases where seq_open() is currently called.
>>>>
>>>> It's first use is in __seq_open_private(), thereby recovering most of
>>>> the code space used by the new function.
>>>
>>> It would be nice to include one or more of the conversions in this patch
>>> series so we can see what the effects look like.
>>
>> There are certainly lots of candidates around. However, I thought that
>> the change to __seq_open_private() already gave a good illustration of
>> the level of savings to be made, in that it more or less made the new
>> function "self financing".
>>
>>>
>>>> --- a/fs/seq_file.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/seq_file.c
>>>> @@ -639,28 +639,38 @@ int seq_release_private(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>>>>    }
>>>>    EXPORT_SYMBOL(seq_release_private);
>>>>
>>>> +int seq_open_init(struct file *f, const struct seq_operations *ops, void *p)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    struct seq_file *s;
>>>> +    int rc;
>>>> +
>>>> +    rc = seq_open(f, ops);
>>>> +    if (rc)
>>>> +        return rc;
>>>> +
>>>> +    s = f->private_data;
>>>> +    s->private = p;
>>>> +
>>>> +    return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(seq_open_init);
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Whoever merges the fs/ changes can (should) also merge the Documentation changes.

OK, if I resubmit (which seems quite likely), I'll merge them into a
single patch.

-- 
Rob Jones
Codethink Ltd
mailto:rob.jones@...ethink.co.uk
tel:+44 161 236 5575
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/