linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] fscache, 9p, afs, cifs, nfs: Deal with some warnings from W=1

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: <2950844.1632142024@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 20 Sep 2021 13:47:04 +0100
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
        Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
        Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fscache, 9p, afs, cifs, nfs: Deal with some warnings from W=1

Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:

> > +++ b/fs/9p/vfs_addr.c
> > @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ static const struct netfs_read_request_ops v9fs_req_ops = {
> >  
> >  /**
> >   * v9fs_vfs_readpage - read an entire page in from 9P
> > - * @filp: file being read
> > + * @file: file being read
> >   * @page: structure to page
> >   *
> >   */
> 
> This is an example of a weird pattern in filesystems.  Several of
> them have kernel-doc for the implementation of various ->ops methods.
> I don't necessarily believe we should delete the comments (although is
> there any useful information in the above?), but I don't see the point
> in the comment being kernel-doc.

Yeah - I would prefer to do that.  Only kdoc it if it's inter-(sub-)driver API
- and if it is, it must have a namespacing prefix so that it is obvious in
amongst a kernel-wide general index.

David