linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel-doc: handle X86 DEFINE

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f10aa2d0-da42-4824-ba30-926040574e70@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 14:15:12 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel-doc: handle X86 DEFINE_IDTENTRY() variants



On 1/3/24 12:30, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> writes:
> 
>> Teach scripts/kernel-doc to handle the various DEFINE_IDTENTRY*() flavors.
>>
>> This corrects 2 kernel-doc warnings:
>>
>> arch/x86/entry/common.c:211: warning: expecting prototype for int80_emulation(). Prototype was for DEFINE_IDTENTRY_RAW() instead
>>
>> arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:2170: warning: expecting prototype for spurious_interrupt(). Prototype was for DEFINE_IDTENTRY_IRQ() instead
>>
>> The script uses 'uname -m' to determine if it is running on i386 or x86_64
>> or something else. It also uses "ARCH=<arch>" in the environment variables
>> to allow for overriding the processed ARCH.
>>
>> Alternatively, we could remove the "/**" kernel-doc markers from those
>> 2 functions. There are 60 uses of DEFINE_IDTENTRY*() that I see and
>> only 2 of them have kernel-doc comments.
> 
> So I feel like I'm missing something here; the docs build should be the
> same regardless of the architecture it's running on, right?  So why do
> we need architecture checks in kernel-doc?

OK, I could do it that way...

> Honestly, it might be better to just remove the kerneldoc comments
> rather than add this much more complexity.

but I am just as happy with that solution. Thomas, is that OK with you?


thanks.
-- 
#Randy