linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] timekeeping: add missed kernel-doc marks for 'tkf'

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:   Sun, 15 Nov 2020 21:08:25 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>, john.stultz@...aro.org
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] timekeeping: add missed kernel-doc marks for 'tkf'

On Fri, Nov 13 2020 at 15:24, Alex Shi wrote:

> Fix the kernel-doc markup and remove the following warning:
> kernel/time/timekeeping.c:415: warning: Function parameter or member
> 'tkf' not described in 'update_fast_timekeeper'
> kernel/time/timekeeping.c:464: warning: Function parameter or member
> 'tkf' not described in '__ktime_get_fast_ns'
>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> index daa0ff017819..d0f7cd1b8823 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> @@ -399,6 +399,7 @@ static inline u64 timekeeping_cycles_to_ns(const struct tk_read_base *tkr, u64 c
>  /**
>   * update_fast_timekeeper - Update the fast and NMI safe monotonic timekeeper.
>   * @tkr: Timekeeping readout base from which we take the update
> + * @tkf: NMI safe timekeeper
>   *
>   * We want to use this from any context including NMI and tracing /
>   * instrumenting the timekeeping code itself.
> @@ -430,6 +431,7 @@ static void update_fast_timekeeper(const struct tk_read_base *tkr,
>  
>  /**
>   * ktime_get_mono_fast_ns - Fast NMI safe access to clock monotonic
> + * @tkf: NMI safe timekeeper
>   *
>   * This timestamp is not guaranteed to be monotonic across an update.
>   * The timestamp is calculated by:

That's wrong. The documentation is for ktime_get_mono_fast_ns() which
does not have an argument, but due to an oversight the documentation is
now above __ktime_get_mono_fast_ns() which takes an argument.

I'm fixing it up.