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]

Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:25:19 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, jason.wessel@...driver.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kgdb: core

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:46:36 -0700 Andrew Morton 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.

As Andrew has pointed out in various emails, it is convention to
put kernel-doc near definitions (implementations), not near
declarations (headers).  [Boy, I hope I didn't get those reversed.]
But it's just convention for the sake of consistency AFAIK.
kernel-doc will read header files if that's what we tell it to do.

> It is, normally.  Nobody thought about this case.
> 
> > 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.

Yes, duplication would be Bad.

> 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

That's (using x86) fairly common also, esp. for functions that header
files (inline functions and macros).

> 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.

kernel-doc output doesn't depend on build $ARCH.


---
~Randy
--
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/