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: <4526cb76-db5b-49aa-ae78-39e351e424d0@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 18:23:09 +0700
From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
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 2/19/25 17:04, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 03:45:41PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>> 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.

OK, thanks!

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara