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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLLpeoUw3_-Ty6xyPL3pD6Q5XGHp6hwGBzhSQHgvTnJqQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:17:09 -0800 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> Cc: Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: refcount_t documentation On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote: > 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. I did notice that, yeah. It seemed like a bunch of kernel-doc was living in the driver-api manual, where it should be in core. Since atomics were already there, I put refcount_t there... -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists