linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/36] mutex, futex: adjust kernel-doc markups to generate ReST

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:   Fri, 12 May 2017 09:41:22 -0700
From:   Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/36] mutex, futex: adjust kernel-doc markups to
 generate ReST

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:59:47AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> There are a few issues on some kernel-doc markups that was
> causing troubles with kernel-doc output on ReST format.
> Fix them.
> 
> No functional changes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>

No objection. One question, rather than prefixing the bulleted list of return
codes with a "-" which has no ReST meaning I could find, should we use "*"
instead which would be converted to a bullet it formatted documentation?

> @@ -1259,9 +1259,9 @@ static int lock_pi_update_atomic(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 uval, u32 newval)
>   * @set_waiters:	force setting the FUTEX_WAITERS bit (1) or not (0)
>   *
>   * Return:
> - *  0 - ready to wait;
> - *  1 - acquired the lock;
> - * <0 - error
> + *  -  0 - ready to wait;
> + *  -  1 - acquired the lock;
> + *  - <0 - error
>   *

e.g.

 * Return:
 *  *  0 - ready to wait
 *  *  1 - acquired the lock
 *  * <0 - error

I'm fine with either though, just curious if this would be an improvement, or if
we have an established policy (which I didn't find in the docs on docs...).

Acked-by: Darren Hart (VMware) <dvhart@...radead.org>

-- 
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center