linux-kernel - Re: Improving documentation for programming interfaces

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: <b8200956-47df-7714-638a-f78cb32a01dc@web.de>
Date:   Wed, 8 Jan 2020 17:55:32 +0100
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Enrico Weigelt <lkml@...ux.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Improving documentation for programming interfaces

>> I propose to encode helpful information into macro calls as needed
>> for the C programming language.
>
> Perhaps it would be useful to for you to express what you are
> proposing in the form of a patch?

I hope that some of our communication difficulties on this topic
can be reduced also by other means.


> On the "benefits" side of the equation, is there are ways in which it
> will directly benefit the kernel developers who will need to review
> the patches and review the annotations, that can be demonstrated immediately?

Do you find a macro like “__must_check” useful enough to increase
the development of further annotations?


> If the costs are very small, then the requirement for demonstrating
> great benefits will also be small.

Would you like to reconsider these concerns according to better
software documentation at all?

Regards,
Markus