linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info

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: <b66c1795-3201-e571-75da-979893338d85@coly.li>
Date:	Wed, 29 Jun 2016 18:16:04 +0800
From:	Coly Li <i@...y.li>
To:	Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>, axboe@...com,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
Cc:	Eric Wheeler <git@...ux.ewheeler.net>, Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>,
	linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info

在 16/6/22 上午10:12, Yijing Wang 写道:
> There is no return in continue_at(), update the documentation.
> 

There are 2 modification of this patch. The first one is about a typo,
it is correct.

But I doubt your second modification is proper. The line removed in your
patch is,
> - * continue_at() also, critically, is a macro that returns the
calling function.
> - * There's good reason for this.
> - *

I think this is exactly what original author wants to say. It does not
mean return a value, it means return to the calling function. And the
bellowed lines explains the reason.

> Signed-off-by: Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/md/bcache/closure.c |    2 +-
>  drivers/md/bcache/closure.h |    3 ---
>  2 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
> index 9eaf1d6..864e673 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ bool closure_wait(struct closure_waitlist *waitlist, struct closure *cl)
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(closure_wait);
>  
>  /**
> - * closure_sync - sleep until a closure a closure has nothing left to wait on
> + * closure_sync - sleep until a closure has nothing left to wait on

Yes, this modification is good.

>   *
>   * Sleeps until the refcount hits 1 - the thread that's running the closure owns
>   * the last refcount.
> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.h b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.h
> index 782cc2c..f51188d 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.h
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.h
> @@ -31,9 +31,6 @@
>   * passing it, as you might expect, the function to run when nothing is pending
>   * and the workqueue to run that function out of.
>   *
> - * continue_at() also, critically, is a macro that returns the calling function.
> - * There's good reason for this.
> - *
>   * To use safely closures asynchronously, they must always have a refcount while
>   * they are running owned by the thread that is running them. Otherwise, suppose
>   * you submit some bios and wish to have a function run when they all complete:
> 


-- 
Coly Li