linux-kernel - Re: [osd-dev] [PATCH 04/18] libosd: OSDv1 preliminary implementation

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:00:29 +0200
From:	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
To:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
CC:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	open-osd development <osd-dev@...n-osd.org>,
	Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Sami.Iren@...gate.com,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [osd-dev] [PATCH 04/18] libosd: OSDv1 preliminary implementation

Randy Dunlap wrote:
> Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>>> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(osd_dev_init);
>>>> kernel-doc comments for all exported funtions / variables.
>>>>
>>> I have some kernel-doc comments of exported functions in the Header
>>> file. I have not yet finished all of them. (Laziness on my part).
>>>
>>> Are kernel-doc comments in headers a big NO-NO. I like it this way,
>>> so when I have to learn a new Library all the information
>>> I need to know is in the header. Also the header is a much better place
>>> when you do programing by shopping, that is you don't know what you need
>>> and you look for what's available.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Boaz
>> Sam please comment if kernel-doc comments are OK in headers
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The de facto standard for kernel-doc comments is at the implementation site,
> which means normally in .c files, except for macros or inline functions.
> 
> Sure you can find some exceptions to that.  And there is no hard requirement
> in Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt.
> 
> IMO the biggest concern is making sure that the (kernel-doc) comments are
> updated when the function implementation changes (if updates are needed).
> Where would be the best place for this to be more likely to happen?
> Usually at the function implementation, I would say.
> 
> ~Randy
> 
> 
Thanks Randy

I would like to keep them in the Headers then. This is because I make
sure that the implementation includes the declaring header, so any miss-matches
are caught by the compiler. 
And because these are all library routines exported to other modules. The important
thing is the API you linked with. If the API/parametrization change it must first
change in the header. The internal implementation is not documented only the external
black-box functionality is documented in these places.

I will think about it some more, but for now, if it's OK I would like to keep them
like submitted. In this particular library they make more sense to me in the header.

Boaz
--
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/