[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YbtUlkaWSQf4yCIb@dev0025.ash9.facebook.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 07:00:38 -0800
From: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com, jikos@...nel.org,
mbenes@...e.cz, joe.lawrence@...hat.com, corbet@....net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: livepatch: Add livepatch API page
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote on Thu [2021-Dec-16 10:57:04 +0100]:
> This change is not good. The function releases all existing shadow
> variables with the given @id for any @obj. And it is not longer clear.
Good point. I'll address that in v3.
> I guess that the primary motivation was to remove "Inline emphasis
> start-string without end string" mentioned in the commit message.
Yes, this was the primary and only motivation. <*, id> is much clearer and I'm
with you on finding a better alternative.
> A solution would be replace '*' with something else, for example, < , id>.
I think this is better than just obj, but in my opinion this may be confusing
for readers and look like a typo. I think I prefer your second suggestion,
though obj really makes more sense in the case where we're actually passing an
@obj to the function. I'll probably (deservedly?) get lambasted for suggesting
this, but what about taking a page out of rust's book and doing something like
this:
* klp_shadow_free_all() - detach and free all <_, id> shadow variables
* with the given @id.
to indicate that in this case we don't care about the obj. Even for a reader
unfamiliar with rust, hopefully it would get the point across.
> Another solution would be to describe it another way, for example:
>
> * klp_shadow_free_all() - detach and free all <obj, id> shadow variables
> * with the given @id.
I'm fine with this as well. Let me know what you think about <_, id> vs. what
you suggested, and I'll send out the v3 patch with your preference.
> BTW: There is likely the same problem in Documentation/livepatch/shadow-vars.rst.
> I see <*, id> there as well.
Indeed you're correct. There's no warning in the build system because there
happen to be two <*, id> ... <*, id> in a row, so rst happily italicizes what's
between them without question. I'll fix this in the v3 of the patch as well.
> Otherwise, the patch looks fine to me.
Thanks for taking a look and for the helpful suggestions.
- David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists