VFS minor improvements policy

[Jori Koolstra]

Hi all,

I submitted a patch a few days ago about fixing the docstring of hash_name().
This is not a reminder of that patch, but today I came across something else
in the VFS code, while trying to implement a mkdirat_fd syscall, that I thought
might be slightly improved. We have this anonymous enum:

   enum {LAST_NORM, LAST_ROOT, LAST_DOT, LAST_DOTDOT};

but it is also used as an out parameter in filename_parentat() through int *type.
Now you have to look up what this int might hold, so I wonder should this
struct not have an explicit type that filename_parentat() uses?

However, my question is really this: what is the stance of vfs maintainers/reviewer
for submitting these kind of patches? While going through the code in more depth I've
noticed wrong/unhelpful docstrings here and there, and other minor "issues". Now,
Greg KH has taught me to be really conservative with what counts as an improvement,
for instance to not sneak-in white-space fixes in a patch.

So let me try to be a bit conservative, and just ask, what is the vfs stand on this?

Thanks,
Jori.