linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] gpio: uapi: documentation improvements

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]

Date:   Tue, 13 Oct 2020 21:29:52 +0800
From:   Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] gpio: uapi: documentation improvements

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 03:21:47PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 5:46 PM Bartosz Golaszewski
> <bgolaszewski@...libre.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 9:03 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm intending to add some GPIO chardev documentation to
> > > Documentation/admin-guide/gpio/chardev.rst (or perhaps
> > > Documentation/userspace-api/??), but that is taking longer than I'd like,
> > > so in the meantime here is a collection of minor documentation tidy-ups
> > > and improvements to the kernel-doc that I've made along the way.
> > > Hopefully nothing controversial - mainly formatting improvements,
> > > and a couple of minor wording changes.
> 
> > For the entire series:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> >
> > Linus: can you take them for v5.10 through your tree directly?
> 
> I am waiting for Kent to respin them addressing Andy's comments
> on patch 5/5 then they can go in as fixes I think.
> 

I had replied to Andy's comments - I'm prefer with my version than his
suggestion:

"I'm not keen on that alternative as what it suggests is actually a
pointer comparison, and even if the user realizes that they may instead
use "strlen(label) == 0", when they shouldn't be assuming that a null
terminator is present in the array.  I avoided mentioning "string" and
kept it in terms of the char array for the same reason."

Cheers,
Kent.