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 10:50:33 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Rob Jones <rob.jones@...ethink.co.uk>
Cc:	rdunlap@...radead.org, 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 Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:10:05 +0100 Rob Jones <rob.jones@...ethink.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.

> > __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().

--
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/