linux-kernel - Re: kgdb: core

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20080422083038.GA28970@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:30:38 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	jason.wessel@...driver.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kgdb: core


* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:12:52 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > > So please
> > > 
> > > a) make this a kerneldoc comment and
> > > 
> > > b) remove the kerneldoc at the definition site(s).
> > > 
> > > (alternative: teach the kerneldoc system to go fishing in the various 
> > > arch directories to find the appropriate documentation, but I don't 
> > > know enough about kerneldoc to be able say anything about that).
> > 
> > well there's lkml feedback ping-pong effect here. It was pointed out 
> > in earlier kgdb review that it's an "error" to put kerneldoc into 
> > header files.
> 
> It is, normally.  Nobody thought about this case.

in that review discussion i pointed out much of the same arguments you 
did in this mail.

> > I pointed out that it makes no sense to do otherwise but removed the 
> > kerneldoc annotation to resolve the "objection".
> 
> Duplicating the same stuff in multiple places is the larger sin.  It 
> sounds like the best compromise would be to kernel-doc the interface 
> in the .h file and remove the duplicated comments from .c.
> 
> Or perhaps we kernel-doc the interface in the x86 .c files and leave 
> it at that - people should go there to find the docs.  Problem is, 
> this will presumably generate bad results if one builds the formal 
> kerneldoc output for a different architecture.  The kerneldoc system 
> could of course fix this somehow, but I don't know what shape it would 
> take nor how much work it would be.

i'd rather just have it in the .h, to put KernelDoc into the position of 
getting fixed with a real testcase?

( _some_ comments in the arch file might be appropriate as well, but
  only if the arch implementation deviates from the common pattern in
  some way. )

It's not like this is a big issue, people writing KGDB arch support are 
not the typical readers of KernelDoc PDFs.

	Ingo
--
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/