linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] docs: refcount

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: <20171211144221.189bd3c3@lwn.net>
Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:42:21 -0700
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
        david@...morbit.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: refcount_t documentation

On Tue,  5 Dec 2017 12:46:35 +0200
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com> wrote:

> Some functions from refcount_t API provide different
> memory ordering guarantees that their atomic counterparts.
> This adds a document outlining these differences (
> Documentation/core-api/refcount-vs-atomic.rst) as well as
> some other minor improvements.

I've applied this, thanks, it looks good.

One thing I noticed, though, is that this landed in the core-api manual,
while the refcount_t documentation is in the driver-api manual.  The
cross-references work just fine and such, but this still doesn't seem quite
right.  Probably what should be done is to have all the refcount_t
material in core-api; I may do that if I get a moment.

Thanks,

jon