linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] printk-rb: add a new printk ringbuffer implementation

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]

Message-ID: <20190619110801.GS3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:08:01 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] printk-rb: add a new printk ringbuffer
 implementation

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:30:26AM +0200, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2019-06-18, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >> +/**
> >> + * DOC: memory barriers
> >
> > What's up with that 'DOC' crap?
> 
> The separate documentation in
> Documentation/core-api/printk-ringbuffer.rst references this so it
> automatically shows up in the kernel docs. An external reference
> requires the DOC keyword.
> 
> Maybe the memory barrier descriptions do not belong in the kernel docs?

So i'm biased; I don't much care for Documentation/ -- code should be
readable and have sufficient comments; I hate rst and I think that
anything that detracts from reading code comments in an editor is pure
evil.

Personally, I've stopped using /** comments, live is better now.

YMMV


> Sorry. I really have no feel about what (or how) exactly I should
> document the memory barriers. I think the above comments make sense when
> someone understands the details of the implementation. But perhaps it
> should describe things such that someone without knowledge of the
> implementation would understand what the memory barriers are for? That
> would significantly increase the amount of text as I would have to
> basically explain the implementation.
> 
> I would appreciate it if you could point out a source file that
> documents its memory barriers the way you would like to see these memory
> barriers documented.

Yeah, I was going to read the implementation and make suggestions; just
haven't gotten there yet.