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

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:10:05 +0100 Rob Jones <rob.jones@codethink.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().