linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 21/36] fs: locks: Fix some troubles at kernel-doc comments

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:   Sat, 13 May 2017 06:14:06 -0300
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
To:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/36] fs: locks: Fix some troubles at kernel-doc
 comments

Hi Jeff,

Em Fri, 12 May 2017 10:02:56 -0400
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net> escreveu:

> On Fri, 2017-05-12 at 11:00 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > There are a few syntax violations that cause outputs of
> > a few comments to not be properly parsed in ReST format.
> > 
> > No functional changes.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/locks.c | 18 ++++++++----------
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> > index 26811321d39b..bdce708e4251 100644
> > --- a/fs/locks.c
> > +++ b/fs/locks.c
> > @@ -1858,8 +1858,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(generic_setlease);
> >   *
> >   * Call this to establish a lease on the file. The "lease" argument is not
> >   * used for F_UNLCK requests and may be NULL. For commands that set or alter
> > - * an existing lease, the (*lease)->fl_lmops->lm_break operation must be set;
> > - * if not, this function will return -ENOLCK (and generate a scary-looking
> > + * an existing lease, the ``(*lease)->fl_lmops->lm_break`` operation must be
> > + * set; if not, this function will return -ENOLCK (and generate a scary-looking
> >   * stack trace).
> >   *
> >   * The "priv" pointer is passed directly to the lm_setup function as-is. It
> > @@ -1972,15 +1972,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(locks_lock_inode_wait);
> >   *	@cmd: the type of lock to apply.
> >   *
> >   *	Apply a %FL_FLOCK style lock to an open file descriptor.
> > - *	The @cmd can be one of
> > + *	The @cmd can be one of:
> >   *
> > - *	%LOCK_SH -- a shared lock.
> > - *
> > - *	%LOCK_EX -- an exclusive lock.
> > - *
> > - *	%LOCK_UN -- remove an existing lock.
> > - *
> > - *	%LOCK_MAND -- a `mandatory' flock.  This exists to emulate Windows Share Modes.
> > + *	- %LOCK_SH -- a shared lock.
> > + *	- %LOCK_EX -- an exclusive lock.
> > + *	- %LOCK_UN -- remove an existing lock.
> > + *	- %LOCK_MAND -- a 'mandatory' flock.
> > + *	  This exists to emulate Windows Share Modes.
> >   *
> >   *	%LOCK_MAND can be combined with %LOCK_READ or %LOCK_WRITE to allow other
> >   *	processes read and write access respectively.  
> 
> LGTM. Do you need me or Bruce to pick this one up?

Feel free to pick it, if it works best for you.

> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>


Thanks,
Mauro