linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the rcu tree

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:   Mon, 7 Dec 2020 10:48:51 -0700
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the rcu tree

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 08:47:04 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:

> I freely confess that I have absolutely no idea what it doesn't like.
> It is complaining about this header comment, correct?
> 
> /**
>  * kmem_last_alloc_stack - Get return address and stack for last allocation
>  * @object: object for which to find last-allocation return address.
>  * @stackp: %NULL or pointer to location to place return-address stack.
>  * @nstackp: maximum number of return addresses that may be stored.
>  *
>  * If the pointer references a slab-allocated object and if sufficient
>  * debugging is enabled, return the return address for the corresponding
>  * allocation.  If stackp is non-%NULL in %CONFIG_STACKTRACE kernels running
>  * the slub allocator, also copy the return-address stack into @stackp,
>  * limited by @nstackp.  Otherwise, return %NULL or an appropriate error
>  * code using %ERR_PTR().
>  *
>  * Return: return address from last allocation, %NULL or negative error code.
>  */

The problem is the %ERR_PTR().  I'm honestly not quite sure why, Sphinx is
being a little weird there.  But in any case the % notation is supposed to
mark a constant, which is not the case here.  I'd just take the % signs
out.

jon