[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+zRQfxRXoSC5G8EjeSkPkpeMxfedJbHEgFyYcyXWmW9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:29:06 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] genalloc: track beginning of allocations
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com> wrote:
> On 13/02/18 01:52, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com> wrote:
>>> @@ -738,14 +1031,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(devm_gen_pool_create);
>>>
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_OF
>>> /**
>>> - * of_gen_pool_get - find a pool by phandle property
>>> + * of_gen_pool_get() - find a pool by phandle property
>>> * @np: device node
>>> * @propname: property name containing phandle(s)
>>> * @index: index into the phandle array
>>> *
>>> - * Returns the pool that contains the chunk starting at the physical
>>> - * address of the device tree node pointed at by the phandle property,
>>> - * or NULL if not found.
>>> + * Return:
>>> + * * pool address - it contains the chunk starting at the physical
>>> + * address of the device tree node pointed at by
>>> + * the phandle property
>>> + * * NULL - otherwise
>>> */
>>> struct gen_pool *of_gen_pool_get(struct device_node *np,
>>> const char *propname, int index)
>>
>> I wonder if this might be more readable by splitting the kernel-doc
>> changes from the bitmap changes? I.e. fix all the kernel-doc in one
>> patch, and in the following, make the bitmap changes. Maybe it's such
>> a small part that it doesn't matter, though?
>
> I had the same thought, but then I would have made most of the kerneldoc
> changes to something that would be altered by the following patch,
> because it would have made little sense to fix only those parts that
> would have survived.
>
> If it is really a problem to keep them together, I could put these
> changes in a following patch. Would that be ok?
Hmmm... I think keeping it as-is would be better than a trailing
docs-only patch. Maybe Jon has an opinion?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
