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.