linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/2] cpusets: restructure the function update_cpumask() and update

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]

Message-Id: <20080530083920.cc7a029f.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Date:	Fri, 30 May 2008 08:39:20 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
Cc:	miaox@...fujitsu.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, menage@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/2] cpusets: restructure the function
 update_cpumask() and update_nodemask()

On Fri, 30 May 2008 01:25:37 -0500 Paul Jackson wrote:

> Randy wrote:
> > Does that help?  your understanding of kernel-doc or your decision?
> 
> Well, I get the difference between E (exported) and I (non-exported)
> now.  And I see that one could prepare documents using SGML templates
> that contained one, or the other of these, for any kernel source files
> of interest.
> 
> I'm stuck on the next step of this decision.
> 
> Usually, when I am preparing documens, I know what document I am
> preparing and have an idea who is in its audience.
> 
> I have never seen or heard of a document using the "/**" kernel-doc
> entries of kernel/cpuset.c, and I have no idea who actually has (in
> the past or present, not just hypothetically) read such or why.
> 
> So I'm kinda shootin in the dark here.
> 
> So, mostly just to be consistent with my previous call, because I enjoy
> being a stubborn retard, I continue to prefer that file static routines
> in kernel/cpuset.c not have "/**" kernel-doc markers on their comments,
> and I would still welcome a patch from Miao removing the ones already
> there.

Well, that's some reason for your decision.  At least you aren't just being
arbitrary.  I agree with Alan, of course.  I don't think that you have stated
a Good reason for removing the kernel-doc on the static functions, but it is
your call AFAICT.

> Enough of this discussion, from me at least.


---
~Randy
"He closes his eyes and drops the goggles.  You can't get hurt
by looking at a bitmap.  Or can you?"
--
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/