linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] cleanup: Add usage and style documentation

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: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 13:06:05 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
 kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
 Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
 Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
 Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
 Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
 Lukas Wunner <lukas.wunner@...el.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cleanup: Add usage and style documentation

…
> +++ b/include/linux/cleanup.h
> @@ -4,6 +4,157 @@
>
>  #include <linux/compiler.h>
>
> +/**
> + * DOC: scope-based cleanup helpers
> + *
> + * The "goto error" pattern is notorious for introducing …

Will any other label become more helpful for this description approach?

> + * this tedium …

Would an other wording be more appropriate here?

> + *                          … maintaining FILO (first in last out)

How does this text fit to your response from yesterday?
https://lore.kernel.org/all/6601c7f7369d4_2690d29490@dwillia2-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com.notmuch/

> + *                                                       … If a function
> + * wants to invoke pci_dev_put() on error, but return @dev (i.e. without
> + * freeing it) on success, it can do:
> + *
> + * ::
> + *
> + *	return no_free_ptr(dev);
> + *
> + * ...or:
> + *
> + * ::
> + *
> + *	return_ptr(dev);
…

Would this macro call be preferred as a succinct specification
(so that only the shorter one should be mentioned here)?
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.8.1/source/include/linux/cleanup.h#L78

> + * Observe the lock is held for the remainder of the "if ()" block not
> + * the remainder of "func()".

I suggest to add a word in this sentence.

* Observe the lock is held for the remainder of the "if ()" block
* (and not the remainder of "func()").

> + * the top of the function poses this potential interdependency problem

I suggest to add a comma at the end of this line.

> + * the recommendation is to always define and assign variables in one
> + * statement and not group variable definitions at the top of the
> + * function when __free() is used.

I became curious how code layout guidance will evolve further also
according to such an advice.

Would you like to increase the collaboration with the macros “DEFINE_CLASS” and “CLASS”?
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.8.1/source/include/linux/cleanup.h#L82

Regards,
Markus