linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the vfs-brauner tree

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: <20250219-frappierend-rannten-2ae9c14117ea@brauner>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:04:58 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the vfs-brauner tree

On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 03:45:41PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 03:34:44PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > After merging the vfs-brauner tree, today's linux-next build (htmldocs)
> > produced this warning:
> > 
> > Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst:1173: ERROR: Unexpected indentation. [docutils]
> > 
> > Introduced by commit
> > 
> >   20c2c1baa9ab ("VFS: add common error checks to lookup_one_qstr_excl()")
> > 
> 
> Separating the bullet list should suffice (plus s/recommend/recommended/
> for consistency with the rest of docs):
> 
> ---- >8 ----
> diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst
> index 3b6622fbd66be9..cfac50a7258db6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst
> @@ -1166,10 +1166,11 @@ kern_path_locked() and user_path_locked() no longer return a negative
>  dentry so this doesn't need to be checked.  If the name cannot be found,
>  ERR_PTR(-ENOENT) is returned.
>  
> -** recommend**
> +** recommended**
>  
>  lookup_one_qstr_excl() is changed to return errors in more cases, so
> -these conditions don't require explicit checks.
> +these conditions don't require explicit checks:
> +
>   - if LOOKUP_CREATE is NOT given, then the dentry won't be negative,
>     ERR_PTR(-ENOENT) is returned instead
>   - if LOOKUP_EXCL IS given, then the dentry won't be positive,
> 
> Let me know if I should send the formal patch.

No, I'll fix it in-tree and fold it.
Thanks.