linux-kernel - Re: {NOT a PATCH} Corrections please ...

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:	Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:52:44 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Kevin Diggs <kevdig@...ersurf.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de,
	arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: {NOT a PATCH} Corrections please ...

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 06:30:11PM -0700, Kevin Diggs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 	It was recommended that I use a completion in a driver I am working on.  
> While figuring out how to use one, I noticed that there was no kernel  
> doc block comments. I am trying to add them. I would rather not have to  
> respin the patch for corrections.

Rather than documenting exactly how the queuing and wakeup occurs on
all functions, you should document it once. i.e. that completions
currently use FIFO queuing. It is probably best to do this at the
definition of the struct completion.

The reason is that if the implementation changes (e.g. to support
priorities and inheritence) the comments are then incorrect and
then there's lots of comments to remove^Wchange.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/