[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YCB+BRp7WIa8YoO3@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 01:55:49 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, mchehab+huawei@...nel.org
Cc: sprabhu@...hat.com, christian@...uner.io, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add namespace tags that can be used for matching
without pinning a ns
On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 08:25:35AM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > > + * init_ns_common - Initialise the common part of a namespace
> >
> > Nit: init_ns_common()
>
> Interesting. The majority of code doesn't put the brackets in.
>
> > I've used lately (e.g. arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c) along the lines:
> >
> > * Return:
> > * - 0: Initialization was successful.
> > * - -ENOMEM: Out of memory.
>
> Actually, looking at kernel-doc.rst, this isn't necessarily the recommended
> approach as it will much everything into one line, complete with dashes, and
> can't handle splitting over lines. You probably meant:
>
> * Return:
> * * 0 - OK to runtime suspend the device
> * * -EBUSY - Device should not be runtime suspended
A line beginning with dash, lines up just as well, as one beginning with
an asterisk. I've also tested this with "make htmldocs".
This is Mauro's response to my recent patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210125105353.5c695d42@coco.lan/
So, what I can make up from this is that they are equally good
alternatives.
What I'm not still fully registering is the dash after the return value.
I mean double comma is used after parameter. Why this weird dash syntax
is used after return value I have no idea, and the kernel-doc.rst does
not provide any explanation.
>
> > * Return:
> > * - 0: Initialization was successful.
> > * - -ENOMEM: Out of memory.
> >
> > Looking at the implementation, I guess this is a complete representation of
> > what it can return?
>
> It isn't. It can return at least -ENOSPC as well, but it's awkward detailing
> the errors from functions it calls since they can change and then the
> description here is wrong. I'm not sure there's a perfect answer to that.
>
> David
What if you just add this as the last entry:
* * -errno: Otherwise.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists