linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] docs: bpf: Fixup atomics documentation

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+i-1C1LVKjfQLBYk6siiqhxfy0jCR7UBcAmJ4jCED0A9aWsxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:43:30 +0100
From:   Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] docs: bpf: Fixup atomics documentation

Thanks for the review :)

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 16:33, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:36:43 +0000
> Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > This fixues up the markup to fix a warning, be more consistent with
> > use of monospace, and use the correct .rst syntax for <em> (* instead
> > of _). It also clarifies the explanation of Clang's -mcpu
> > requirements for this feature, Alexei pointed out that use of the
> > word "version" was confusing here.
>
> This starts to sound like material for more than one patch...?

Good point, I'll split the markup fixups and actual content change
into separate patches.

> > NB this conflicts with Lukas' patch at [1], here where I've added
> > `::` to fix the warning, I also kept the original ':' which appears
> > in the output text.
>
> And why did you do that?

Hmm, indeed looks like that isn't necessary as long as there are no
spaces between the previous character and the '::'.

v2 incoming...

> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CA+i-1C3cEXqxcXfD4sibQfx+dtmmzvOzruhk8J5pAw3g5v=KgA@mail.gmail.com/T/#t
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/networking/filter.rst | 30 +++++++++++++++--------------
> >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/networking/filter.rst b/Documentation/networking/filter.rst
> > index f6d8f90e9a56..ba03e90a9163 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/networking/filter.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/networking/filter.rst
> > @@ -1048,12 +1048,12 @@ Unlike classic BPF instruction set, eBPF has generic load/store operations::
> >  Where size is one of: BPF_B or BPF_H or BPF_W or BPF_DW.
> >
> >  It also includes atomic operations, which use the immediate field for extra
> > -encoding.
> > +encoding: ::
>
> Things like this read really strangely.  Just say "encoding::" and be done
> with it, please.
>
> Thanks,
>
> jon