[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YcBn2mk2hUp4Zt0s@alley>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 12:24:10 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: David Vernet <void@...ifault.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
On Thu 2021-12-16 07:00:38, David Vernet wrote:
> 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.
>
> > 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.
<_, id> looks good to me. And I not even familiar with rust ;-)
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists