linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/9] mm/memory: split non-tlb flushing part from zap_page_range

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: <20250401212538.81728-1-sj@kernel.org>
Date: Tue,  1 Apr 2025 14:25:38 -0700
From: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
To: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
Cc: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Liam R. Howlett" <howlett@...il.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	kernel-team@...a.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] mm/memory: split non-tlb flushing part from zap_page_range_single()

On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 10:03:17 -0400 "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com> wrote:

> * SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> [250331 22:48]:
> > On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 21:45:40 -0400 "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > * SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> [250310 13:24]:
[...] 
> Thanks.  I don't really mind if you have anything else to name it, as
> long as it reduces the confusion.

Fully agreed and thanks again for the nice name suggestion.

[...]
> > That makes sense.  In the next revision, I will add the kernel-doc comment
> > here, but not as a valid kernel-doc comment (maybe wtarts with /* instead of
> > /**) since this function is a static function as of this patch.  On the next
> > patch that makes this non-static, I will make the comment a valid kernel-doc
> > comment with a minimum change.
> > 
> > I prefer not having a valid kernel-doc comment for static function, but that's
> > just a personal preferrence and I have no strong reason to object other way.
> > Please feel free to let me know if you prefer making it valid kernel doc
> > comment starting from this patch.
> > 
> 
> Yes, that was what I was thinking as well.

Thanks for kindly clarifying, Liam :)


Thanks,
SJ

[...]