linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 49/56] refcount.h: fix a kernel-doc markup

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 23 Oct 2020 21:39:07 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 49/56] refcount.h: fix a kernel-doc markup

On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 10:40:09AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 06:33:36PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > The documented typedef just after the kernel-doc markup
> > is named "refcount_struct".
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/refcount.h | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/refcount.h b/include/linux/refcount.h
> > index 497990c69b0b..8f431b0e69e4 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/refcount.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/refcount.h
> > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@
> >  struct mutex;
> >  
> >  /**
> > - * struct refcount_t - variant of atomic_t specialized for reference counts
> > + * struct refcount_struct - variant of atomic_t specialized for reference counts
> 
> Hm, this is a weird one. Yes, it's actually "struct refcount_struct",
> but the usage should be refcount_t (through the typedef). I'm not sure
> what the right way to document this is.

Yeah, this is wrong. If this is due to a kernel doc warning, the kernel
doc machinery is wrong *again*.