Re: [PATCH 2/2] seq_file: Require explicit initialization of struct seq_operations

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 09:47:34AM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 9:11 AM Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > __must_init might be smaller?
> 
> That sounds fine too. I like that it says that something *has* to be
> done (like the original name did). Hmm... On the other hand, I guess
> "must" could sound like one has to initialize the field "somehow",
> i.e. writing:
> 
>   struct S s = {};
> 
> definitely initializes it, yet the compiler would warn. Would
> "explicit" hint a bit more at the fact that one has to actually
> "write" the field, even if it may have been initialized anyway?

"explicit" is a description, "must" is an action that tells the reader
what they have to do, so maybe "must" is better?

Anyway, I don't care, naming is hard, either is fine with me, I'll let
the authors of the patch here pick what they want :)

thanks,

greg k-h