linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/16] i2c: busses: i2c-mxs: Demote barely half complete 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]

Date:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 10:32:49 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/16] i2c: busses: i2c-mxs: Demote barely half complete
 kernel-doc header

On Fri, 04 Jun 2021, Wolfram Sang wrote:

> 
> > IMHO, we wouldn't want to foster the impression that it's okay to
> > provide a non-determined effort, safe in the knowledge that someone
> > will come along later and finish the job for them at a later date.
> 
> Right.
> 
> The first lesson from that is that maintainers should require
> documentation of the fields when they get added. This was my oversight
> because it was back then not reported by checkers, probably. I am sorry.
> It annoys me, too.

Sure.

When I started this work, there were 18k+ W=1 warnings in the kernel.
Now there are more like 3k.  I don't think anyone is to blame per say,
it's just something that people haven't particularly cared about up
until this point.

One of my main aims is to clean-up W=1s to the point where enabling
them would become normal practice, rather than the situation we're in
presently where enabling them just dominates the build-log, making
them more trouble than they're worth.

> If I notice that someone updates a driver which doc-errors, then I ask
> if that could be fixed by this person, too. It usually works. Not for
> drivers without attention, of course. But this is why I don't mind
> doc-errors to stay.

I'd rather they didn't say.

This would void the main aim of this effort.

> If this is considered problematic, then I'd suggest to remove the kernel
> doc headers like you did, but add a comment like:
> 
>  * FIXME: add missing fields and reenable kernel-doc
> 
> To make sure, it is obvious even by glimpsing through the code that
> there is work needed.
> 
> Can we agree on that?

It's the first time this has been requested, but it's your train-set
and I will do whatever you ask.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog