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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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