Re: [PATCH RESUBMIT 1/2] fs/seq_file: Create new function seq_open_init()

[Rob Jones]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
tel:+44 161 236 5575
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/