linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs changes for 6.11

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: <e6132b5a-813e-4bb8-a096-7ca4f0b3cc45@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 17:57:07 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
 Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
 linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs changes for 6.11


On 7/18/24 17:27, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 05:20:54PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>> From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
>> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 17:17:10 -0400
>> Subject: [PATCH] lockdep: Add comments for lockdep_set_no{validate,track}_class()
>>
>> Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
>> index b76f1bcd2f7f..bdfbdb210fd7 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
>> @@ -178,9 +178,22 @@ static inline void lockdep_init_map(struct lockdep_map *lock, const char *name,
>>   			      (lock)->dep_map.wait_type_outer,		\
>>   			      (lock)->dep_map.lock_type)
>>   
>> +/**
>> + * lockdep_set_novalidate_class: disable checking of lock ordering on a given
>> + * lock
>> + *
>> + * Lockdep will still record that this lock has been taken, and print held
>> + * instances when dumping locks
>> + */
> Might want to run this through kernel-doc.  I'm pretty sure it wants
> macro comments to be formatted like function comments.  ie:
>
> /**
>   * lockdep_set_novalidate_class - Disable lock order checks on this lock.
>   * @lock: The lock to disable order checks for.
>   *
>   * Lockdep will still record that this lock has been taken, and print held
>   * instances when dumping locks.
>   */
>
>>   #define lockdep_set_novalidate_class(lock) \
>>   	lockdep_set_class_and_name(lock, &__lockdep_no_validate__, #lock)

Yes, that is true. It is not in the proper kernel-doc format. Either use 
the proper format or use a single "*" instead.

Cheers,
Longman