Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:31:38 +0400 | From | Dmitri Vorobiev <> | Subject | Re: [Pull] Some documentation patches |
| |
Jan Engelhardt пишет: > > On Friday 2008-03-28 19:20, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >> commit 9756ccfda31b4c4544aa010aacf71b6672d668e8 >> Date: Fri Mar 28 11:19:56 2008 -0600 >> >> Add the seq_file documentation > > patch on top: > > - add const qualifiers > - remove void* casts > - use proper specifier (%Ld is not valid) > > Signed-off-by: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de> > > diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt > b/Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt > index 92975ee..cc6cdb9 100644 > --- a/Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt > +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt > @@ -107,8 +107,8 @@ complete. Here's the example version: > > static void *ct_seq_next(struct seq_file *s, void *v, loff_t *pos) > { > - loff_t *spos = (loff_t *) v; > - *pos = ++(*spos); > + loff_t *spos = v; > + *pos = ++*spos;
Excuse me, what's the point in this change and the next one? IMO, removing the explicit type cast makes the code less obvious (AFAICT, this is a trendy word in LKML these days). Relying upon operator priorities instead of explicit operator grouping using parentheses can confuse people, too. Imagine a person looking at these lines: after the change, he or she will need to check the variable v type in the argument list, and consult the table of operator priorities in C if the person is in doubt about what the code does.
Just my two cents...
Dmitri
> return spos; > } > > @@ -127,8 +127,8 @@ something goes wrong. The example module's show() > function is: > > static int ct_seq_show(struct seq_file *s, void *v) > { > - loff_t *spos = (loff_t *) v; > - seq_printf(s, "%Ld\n", *spos); > + loff_t *spos = v; > + seq_printf(s, "%lld\n", (long long)*spos); > return 0; > } > > @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ We will look at seq_printf() in a moment. But first, > the definition of the > seq_file iterator is finished by creating a seq_operations structure with > the four functions we have just defined: > > - static struct seq_operations ct_seq_ops = { > + static const struct seq_operations ct_seq_ops = { > .start = ct_seq_start, > .next = ct_seq_next, > .stop = ct_seq_stop, > @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ line, as in the example module: > static int ct_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file) > { > return seq_open(file, &ct_seq_ops); > - }; > + } > > Here, the call to seq_open() takes the seq_operations structure we created > before, and gets set up to iterate through the virtual file. > @@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ The other operations of interest - read(), llseek(), > and release() - are > all implemented by the seq_file code itself. So a virtual file's > file_operations structure will look like: > > - static struct file_operations ct_file_ops = { > + static const struct file_operations ct_file_ops = { > .owner = THIS_MODULE, > .open = ct_open, > .read = seq_read, > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |