netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3 net-next] linux: Add skb_frag_t page

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: <94802E4A-536A-4249-BEA3-5D89E8073738@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Jul 2019 14:53:45 -0700
From:   "Jonathan Lemon" <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
To:     "Jakub Kicinski" <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, kernel-team@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "Matthew Wilcox" <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 net-next] linux: Add skb_frag_t page_offset accessors



On 29 Jul 2019, at 14:25, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 14:22:11 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>>> I realize you're following the existing code, but should we perhaps
>>>> use
>>>> the latest kdoc syntax? '()' after function name, and args should have
>>>> '@' prefix, '%' would be for constants.
>>>
>>> That would be a task for a different cleanup.  Not that I disagree with
>>> you, but there's also nothing worse than mixing styles in the same file.
>>
>> Funny you should say that given that (a) I'm commenting on the new code
>> you're adding, and (b) you did do an unrelated spelling fix above ;)
>
> Ah, sorry I misread your comment there.
>
> Some code already uses '()' in this file, as for the '%' skb_frag_
> functions are the only one which have this mistake, the rest of kdoc
> is correct.

The kernel-doc.rst guide seems to indicate that function names should
have () at the end - but none of them do so within this file.  (only when
talking about the function in the document).

The %CONST indicates name of a constant - I'm unclear whether this is
supposed to refer to a constant parameter.  For example:

/**
 *      __skb_peek - peek at the head of a non-empty &sk_buff_head
 *      @list_: list to peek at
 *
 *      Like skb_peek(), but the caller knows that the list is not empty.
 */
static inline struct sk_buff *__skb_peek(const struct sk_buff_head *list_)
{
        return list_->next;
}