lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:09:11 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com> Subject: Re: [DOC PATCH] semaphore documentation On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:27:54 -0700 Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:21:54 -0600 Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 03:19:07PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:08:16 -0600 > > > Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> wrote: > > > > It seems very strange to me to document the API with the implementation > > > > rather than with the declaration. It's almost as if we expect people to > > > > have to read the implementation to figure out how stuff works. > > > > > > That approach makes sense for C++. But for C, the code is .c-centric. > > > > I've never programmed in C++ ... I just expect to find API documentation > > in header files. > > > > > That's particularly the case with the kernel, where we explicitly work to > > > make the .c files the things which people look at, while not caring about > > > the .h files. Look at how much we say "get that ifdef out of there and > > > hide it in the header file". > > > > I see that as being "move the complexity around" and "get the interfaces > > right", not "hide it in the header files where nobody ever looks". > > > > > > How about a note in semaphore.c that says "refer to semaphore.h for > > > > usage information"? > > > > > > No, please document it in the C file, where people expect to find it. > > > > Fine, I've done it the other way round. > > > > Please review this doc-patch. Without comments, I'll commit it to the > > semaphore git tree tomorrow. > > Looks good to me. Thanks. Yup, most excellent. btw, down() and friends should have might_sleep() checks in them, shouldn't they? They don't seem to be in there, nor in mainline lib/semaphore-sleepers.c. Confused. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists