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]

Message-ID: <542456E0.1040404@codethink.co.uk>
Date:	Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:54:40 +0100
From:	Rob Jones <rob.jones@...ethink.co.uk>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
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 25/09/14 18:50, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.

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@...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/