[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 17:56:29 +0200
From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
CC: <jglisse@...hat.com>, <keescook@...omium.org>, <mhocko@...nel.org>,
<labbott@...hat.com>, <hch@...radead.org>, <willy@...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 5/6] Documentation for Pmalloc
Thanks for the review and apologies for the delay.
Replies inlined below.
On 30/01/18 19:08, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 17:14:45 +0200
> Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com> wrote:
[...]
> Please don't put plain-text files into core-api - that's a directory full
ok
>> diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/pmalloc.txt b/Documentation/core-api/pmalloc.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..934d356
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/core-api/pmalloc.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
>
> We might as well put the SPDX tag here, it's a new file.
ok, this is all new stuff to me ... I suppose I should do it also for
all the other new files I create
But what is the license for the documentation? It's not code, so GPL
seems wrong. Creative commons?
I just noticed a patch for checkpatch.pl about SPDX and asked the same
question there.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/2/365
>> +============================
>> +Protectable memory allocator
>> +============================
>> +
>> +Introduction
>> +------------
[...]
> This is all good information, but I'd suggest it belongs more in the 0/n
> patch posting than here. The introduction of *this* document should say
> what it actually covers.
ok
>
>> +
>> +Design
>> +------
[...]
>> +To keep it to a minimum, locking is left to the user of the API, in
>> +those cases where it's not strictly needed.
>
> This seems like a relevant and important aspect of the API that shouldn't
> be buried in the middle of a section talking about random things.
I'll move it to the Use section.
[...]
>> +Use
>> +---
>> +
>> +The typical sequence, when using pmalloc, is:
>> +
>> +1. create a pool
>> +2. [optional] pre-allocate some memory in the pool
>> +3. issue one or more allocation requests to the pool
>> +4. initialize the memory obtained
>> + - iterate over points 3 & 4 as needed -
>> +5. write protect the pool
>> +6. use in read-only mode the handlers obtained through the allocations
>> +7. [optional] destroy the pool
>
> So one gets this far, but has no actual idea of how to do these things.
> Which leads me to wonder: what is this document for? Who are you expecting
> to read it?
I will add a reference to the selftest file.
In practice it can also work as example.
> You could improve things a lot by (once again) going to RST and using
> directives to bring in the kerneldoc comments from the source (which, I
> note, do exist). But I'd suggest rethinking this document and its
> audience. Most of the people reading it are likely wanting to learn how to
> *use* this API; I think it would be best to not leave them frustrated.
ok, the example route should be more explicative.
--
thanks again for the review, igor
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.
