linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 12/21] clk: sunxi: clk-sun6i-ar100: Demote non-conformant kernel-doc header

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]

Message-ID: <20210203092744.yfedaauyynzn537h@gilmour>
Date:   Wed, 3 Feb 2021 10:27:44 +0100
From:   Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Emilio López <emilio@...pez.com.ar>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>,
        Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/21] clk: sunxi: clk-sun6i-ar100: Demote non-conformant
 kernel-doc header

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 04:54:59PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:45:31PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
> > > 
> > >  drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c:26: warning: Function parameter or member 'req' not described in 'sun6i_get_ar100_factors'
> > > 
> > > Cc: "Emilio López" <emilio@...pez.com.ar>
> > > Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
> > > Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
> > > Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
> > > Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
> > > Cc: Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>
> > > Cc: Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
> > > Cc: linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
> > > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c
> > > index e1b7d0929cf7f..54babc2b4b9ee 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c
> > > @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
> > >  
> > >  #include "clk-factors.h"
> > >  
> > > -/**
> > > +/*
> > >   * sun6i_get_ar100_factors - Calculates factors p, m for AR100
> > >   *
> > >   * AR100 rate is calculated as follows
> > 
> > This is the sixth patch doing the exact same thing over the files in
> > that folder you sent. Please fix all the occurences at once
> 
> No.  That would make the whole clean-up process 10x harder than it
> already is
> 
> Before starting this endeavour there were 18,000+ warnings spread over
> 100's of files and 10's of subsystems that needed addressing (only a
> couple thousand left now thankfully).  Some issues vastly different,
> some duplicated (much too much copy/pasting going which made things
> very frustrating at times).
> 
> Anyway, in order to work though them all gracefully and in a sensible
> time-frame I had to come up with a workable plan.  Each subsystem is
> compiled separately and a script attempts to take out duplicate
> warnings and takes me through the build-log one file at a time.  Once
> all of the warnings are fixed in a source-file, it moves on to the
> next file.  The method is clean and allows me to handle this
> gargantuan task in bite-sized chunks.

I mean, you have literally used the same commit log and the same changes
over six different files in the same directory. Sure changes across
different parts of the kernel can be painful, but it's really not what
we're discussing here.

> Going though and pairing up similar changes is unsustainable for a
> task like this.  It would add a lot of additional overhead and would
> slow down the rate of acceptance since source files tend to have
> different reviewers/maintainers - some working faster to review
> patches than others, leading to excessive lag times waiting for that
> one reviewer who takes weeks to review.

Are you arguing that sending the same patch 6 times is easier and faster
to review for the maintainer than the same changes in a single patch?

> Having each file addressed in a separate patch also helps
> revertability and bisectability. Not such a big problem with the
> documentation patches, but still.

There's nothing to revert or bisect, those changes aren't functional
changes.

> Admittedly doing it this way *can* look a bit odd in *some* patch-sets
> when they hit the MLs - particularly clock it seems, where there
> hasn't even been a vague attempt to document any of the parameters in
> the kernel-doc headers - however the alternative would mean nothing
> would get done!

Yeah, and even though properly documenting the functions would have been
the right way to fix those warnings, I didn't ask you to do that since I
was expecting it to be daunting. Surely we can meet half-way

Maxime

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)