linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/sgx: Fix typos and formatting in function comments

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: <71675CA4-D76B-4B81-B71B-8C2B79AAAC3C@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2025 20:13:43 +0100
From: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...ux.dev>
To: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
Cc: "jarkko@...nel.org" <jarkko@...nel.org>,
 "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
 "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
 "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
 "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
 "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/sgx: Fix typos and formatting in function comments

On 4. Nov 2025, at 00:47, Huang, Kai wrote:
> It seems we don't have a consistent way of describing return values in the
> k-doc comments in sgx/main.c.  E.g.,
> 
> /**
> * sgx_unmark_page_reclaimable() - Remove a page from the reclaim list
> 
> ...
> 
> * Return:
> *   0 on success,
> *   -EBUSY if the page is in the process of being reclaimed
> */
> 
> 
> /**
> * sgx_alloc_epc_page() - Allocate an EPC page
> 
> ...
> 
> * Return:
> *   an EPC page,
> *   -errno on error
> */
> 
> Perhaps we should make them consistent in format.
> 
> But I think this can be done separately from fixing the typos.  Maybe you 
> can split out the typo fixing as a separate patch, and have another patch to
> fixing the return value description?

I used the style mostly found in main.c and ioctl.c - would that be the
"correct" format for the others as well? Happy to submit a separate
patch if it's worth it.

Thanks,
Thorsten