linux-kernel - Re: comments style: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/9] 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: <20190823142708.GA2068@andrea>
Date:   Fri, 23 Aug 2019 16:27:08 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: comments style: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/9] printk-rb: add a new
 printk ringbuffer implementation

> I am not suggesting to remove all comments. Some human readable
> explanation is important as long as the code is developed by humans.
> 
> I think that I'll have to accept also the extra comments if you are
> really going to use them to check the consistency by a tool. Or
> if they are really used for review by some people.

Glad to hear this.  Thank you, Petr.


> Do all this manuals, tools, people use any common syntax, please?
> Would it be usable in our case as well?
> 
> I would like to avoid reinventing the wheel. Also I do not want
> to create a dialect for few people that other potentially interested
> parties will not understand.

Right; I think that terms such as "(barrier) matching", "reads-from"
and "overwrites" are commonly used to refer to litmus tests.  (The
various primitives/instructions are of course specific to the given
context: the language, the memory model, etc. )

IOW, I'd say that that wheel _and a common denominator here can be
represented by the notion of "litmus test".  I'm not suggesting to
reinvent this wheel of course; my point was more along the lines of
"let's use the wheel, it'll be helpful..."  ;-)

  Andrea