linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] fs: dax: Adding new return type vm_fault

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]

Message-ID: <20180424114517.GC26636@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 04:45:17 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
Cc:     jack@...e.cz, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] fs: dax: Adding new return type vm_fault_t

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:29:39AM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:19 AM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:36:25PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> >> If the insertion of PTE failed because someone else
> >> already added a different entry in the mean time, we
> >> treat that as success as we assume the same entry was
> >> actually inserted.
> >
> > No, Jan said to *make it a comment*.  In the source file.  That's why
> > he formatted it with the /* */.  Not in the changelog.
> Sorry, got confused.
> 
> I think this should be fine -
> 
> +/*
> +If the insertion of PTE failed because someone else
> +already added a different entry in the mean time, we
> +treat that as success as we assume the same entry was
> +actually inserted.
> +*/

Jan literally typed out exactly what you need to insert:

/*
 * If the insertion of PTE failed because someone else already added a
 * different entry in the mean time, we treat that as success as we assume
 * the same entry was actually inserted.
 */

For some reason you've chosen to wrap the lines shorter than Jan had them,
and use a different comment formatting style from the rest of the kernel.
Why?  I'd suggest re-reading Documentation/process/coding-style.rst