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: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:29:57 -0800
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, Jiri Pirko
	<jiri@...nulli.us>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	<davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	<johannes@...solutions.net>, <amritha.nambiar@...el.com>, <sdf@...gle.com>,
	<horms@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v4 5/9] genetlink: introduce per-sock family
 private pointer storage



On 11/28/2023 12:06 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 11:59:05AM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:
>> On 11/28/2023 8:18 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 01:30:51PM +0100, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
>>>> On 11/23/23 19:15, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>>> + * Returns: valid pointer on success, otherwise NULL.
>>>>
>>>> since you are going to post next revision,
>>>>
>>>> kernel-doc requires "Return:" section (singular form)
>>>> https://docs.kernel.org/doc-guide/kernel-doc.html#function-documentation
>>>>
>>>> for new code we should strive to fulfil the requirement
>>>> (or piss-off someone powerful enough to change the requirement ;))
>>>
>>> Interestingly that the script accepts plural for a few keywords.
>>> Is it documented somewhere as deprecated?
>>
>> I also checked the source:
>>
>> $git grep --count -h 'Returns:' |  awk '{ sum += $1 } END { print sum }'
>> 3646
>> $git grep --count -h 'Return:' |  awk '{ sum += $1 } END { print sum }'
>> 10907
>>
>> So there is a big favor towards using 'Return:', but there are still
>> about 1/3 as many uses of 'Returns:'.
>>
>> I dug into kernel-doc and it looks like it has accepted both "Return"
>> and "Returns" since the first time that section headers were limited:
>> f624adef3d0b ("kernel-doc: limit the "section header:" detection to a
>> select few")
>>
>> I don't see any documentation on 'Returns;' being deprecated, but the
>> documentation does only call out 'Return:'.
> 
> Then I would amend documentation followed by amending scripts, etc.
> Before that it's unclear to me that contributor must use Return:. It
> sounds like similar collision to 80 vs. 100 (former in documentation,
> latter in the checkpatch).
> 
> Of course, there might be sunsystem rules, but again, has to be documented.
> Right?
> 

Documenting it seems reasonable to me.

Thanks,
Jake

Powered by blists - more mailing lists