Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:41:57 +0200
From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: <willy@...radead.org>, <rdunlap@...radead.org>, <corbet@....net>,
	<keescook@...omium.org>, <mhocko@...nel.org>, <labbott@...hat.com>,
	<jglisse@...hat.com>, <hch@...radead.org>, <cl@...ux.com>,
	<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Protectable Memory



On 12/02/18 14:53, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> 'scripts/kernel-doc -v -none 

That has a quite interesting behavior.

I run it on genalloc.c while I am in the process of adding the brackets
to the function names in the kernel-doc description.

The brackets confuse the script and it fails to output the name of the
function in the log:

lib/genalloc.c:123: info: Scanning doc for get_bitmap_entry
lib/genalloc.c:139: info: Scanning doc for
lib/genalloc.c:152: info: Scanning doc for
lib/genalloc.c:164: info: Scanning doc for


The first function does not have the brackets.
The others do. So what should I do with the missing brackets?
Add them, according to the kernel docs, or leave them out?

I'd lean toward adding them.

--
igor

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ