Hey, On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:13:27PM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote: > we can rename kn_root to from here if you think that's clearer (and > change the order here as well).
I think it'd be better for them to be consistent and in the same order - the target and then the optional base. > > Was converting the path functions to return > > length too much work? If so, that's fine but please explain what > > decisions were made. > > Yes, I had replied saying: > > |I can change that, but the callers right now don't re-try with > |larger buffer anyway, so this would actually complicate them just > |a smidgeon. Would you want them changed to do that? (pr_cont_kernfs_path > |right now writes into a static char[] for instance) > > I can still make that change if you like. Oops, sorry I forgot about that. The reason why kernfs_path() is written the current way was me being lazy. While I think it'd be better to make the functions behave like normal string handling functions if we're extending it, I don't think it's that important. If it's easy, please go ahead. If not, we can get back to it later when necessary. > > I skimmed through the series and spotted several other review points > > which didn't get addressed. Can you please go over the previous > > review cycle and address the review points? > > I did go through every email twice, once while making changes (one > branch per response) and once while making changelog for each patch, > sorry about whatever I missed. I'll go through each again. The other chunk I noticed was inline conversions of internal functions which didn't seem to belong to the patch. I asked whether those were stray chunks. Maybe the comment was too buried to notice? Anyways, that part actually causes conflicts when applying to cgroup/for-4.5. There are a couple more things. * Can you please put the ns related decls after the regular cgroup stuff in cgroup.h? * I think I might need to edit the documentation anyway but it'd be great if you can make the namespace section more in line with the rest of the documentation - e.g. s/CGroup/cgroup/ and more structured sectioning. At this point, it all generally looks good to me. Let's get the nits out of the way and merge it. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
