netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 07/27] net: add for_each iterators through neighbour lower link's private

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]

Date:	Tue, 17 Sep 2013 04:43:02 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	jiri@...nulli.us, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 07/27] net: add for_each iterators through
 neighbour lower link's private

On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 09:36 +0200, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 02:26:43AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 02:46 +0200, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
> >[...]
> >> --- a/net/core/dev.c
> >> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> >> @@ -4537,6 +4537,72 @@ struct net_device *netdev_all_upper_get_next_dev_rcu(struct net_device *dev,
> >>  }
> >>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(netdev_all_upper_get_next_dev_rcu);
> >>
> >> +/* netdev_lower_get_next_private - Get the next ->private from the
> >> + *				   lower neighbour list
> >[...]
> >
> >This is not correct kernel-doc syntax.  You must begin the comment like
> >this:
> >
> >/**
> > * function_name - summary on one physical line, no wrapping allowed
> 
> I've thought that netdev specifically requires that type of comments*. But
> I don't have any strong opinion on that, so if needed - can change easily
> in the next version.
> 
> Thanks a lot!
> 
> *Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt
> 
> Q: Someone said that the comment style and coding convention is different
>     for the networking content.  Is this true?
> 
> A: Yes, in a largely trivial way.  Instead of this:
> 
>          /*
>           * foobar blah blah blah
>           * another line of text
>           */
> 
>     it is requested that you make it look like this:
> 
>          /* foobar blah blah blah
>           * another line of text
>           */
> 
> 

Thats for comments, not kernel-doc sections.

You provided :

+/* netdev_lower_get_next_private - Get the next ->private from the
+ *                                lower neighbour list
+ * @dev: device
+ * @iter: list_head ** of the current position
+ *
+ * Gets the next netdev_adjacent->private from the dev's lower neighbour
+ * list, starting from iter position. The caller must hold either hold the
+ * RTNL lock or its own locking that guarantees that the neighbour lower
+ * list will remain unchainged. If iter is NULL - return the first private.
+ */

Which really looks like a kernel-doc section,
but misses the proper delimiter which is :

/**

Not 

/*



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html