linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the slab tree with the mm-unstable 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20251114115538.GA13469@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 12:55:38 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the slab tree with the mm-unstable
 tree

On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 10:13:40AM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> We have the 'Context:' tag in kdoc. What about the following?
> 
> 	Context: Any context. Takes and releases pool->lock.

Which in this case would be ok.  But what about functions that take
non-irqsave spinlocks?

> I used the function in a tracepoint handler [0] and trusted its documentation
> to "never sleep". That turned out to be incorrect.

Heh, you'll find a lot of those..

> Also see the discussion on the patch submission [1] about just this point,
> where we didn't come up with better wording.

Can we please start a discussion on this on say linux-doc and
linux-kernel?  I don't really have a good answer, but this current
idea feels a bit lacking.  I don't meant that as trying to block
this patch, but I think we need to come up with a better convention.