From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5E24311588; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 17:11:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.17 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767978697; cv=none; b=FwmxlY5VzBjNasbIAeJYa1JgnJLi90nRFU52HUr1wh1JAB7v5bOtIi0Q3J9IgGpVg3gRbUdcdpvLdCbKlK5RPhu7qubuJI/A3WTm/ByrwTTE2WeYr97KpWLSaNCB7eDXzf/p9e8C+oMU03zj2j3Y6sHTnnqi/7wAz64WwMeDda8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767978697; c=relaxed/simple; bh=e3oY6JfwDOLBMDRhJKRYKwjLmCy0nzggqP/Z29Lo854=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ih/FxrdOl8cZ9rd0Pee3X45Tl3j9Nn7U8t3QVn/3wJXja9za/xfuY7ewPqDGI2LFuDYl1nOuF7qutlfL5jzO1SHLfubm6pniLi168wHY+YqVixzE12hOXl/KWX3ftynqWIwZrWCACJ1XZm4b0IPP5HaTNjProfZFF6llqeDjhUY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=Abna4UaH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.17 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="Abna4UaH" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1767978696; x=1799514696; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=e3oY6JfwDOLBMDRhJKRYKwjLmCy0nzggqP/Z29Lo854=; b=Abna4UaHpEeJgeTjUUkKKXaa410rDBIAu/mKRxdOI/vo8ixIEo7gdy00 cQOv+OdOPWQM7SWMroGfIjea6Lzb3PrrpjBBmhMAbjqRwv3NsYW11iyQ1 ZKNrR+g7ORXFGG7FuFLYHqae/geP/9ZJE6H/G+n8I2Dzz6r2Ae+qL1Sqk fNcRrPzHgmY0Eh1xl/0FPbVn1oAPMtHQkUFn2PIwwRyzN8NKFBSkDPHF7 kT76iT2cbP3YoBiXe9bI0uCesfynngiFiPbPHb3W0GTsxb6QcQEoqTMWT rg13wKuh4TbBx/bUF/yfTacpQfu+thGzB6398m8GQFiJrdyU9pgmcAGgL Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: AgKqQ9I/QOSpJJG5ekbWgQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: l2zUY9JiQPGuQBetekkZRw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11666"; a="69347067" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,214,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="69347067" Received: from orviesa006.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.146]) by orvoesa109.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jan 2026 09:11:35 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 3KSIUQcAQoCqsq4VtHqVDw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: fgJgn7UsTpCVnJDvmx3Pww== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,214,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="202636200" Received: from abityuts-desk.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.244.157]) by orviesa006-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jan 2026 09:11:33 -0800 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 19:11:31 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Dmitry Antipov Cc: Carlos Maiolino , Christoph Hellwig , Kees Cook , Andy Shevchenko , Andrew Morton , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] lib: introduce simple error-checking wrapper for memparse() Message-ID: References: <20260108165216.1054625-1-dmantipov@yandex.ru> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 02:41:55PM +0300, Dmitry Antipov wrote: > On Thu, 2026-01-08 at 22:05 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > > 2) missing Return section (run kernel-doc validator with -Wreturn, > > for example). > > Good point. Should checkpatch.pl call kernel-doc (always or perhaps > if requested using command-line option)? > > OTOH 1) lib/cmdline.c violates kernel-doc -Wreturn almost everywhere > :-( and 2) IIUC this patch is already queued by Andrew. Andrew's workflow allows folding / squashing patches. > I would > prefer to fix kernel-doc glitches immediately after memvalue() and > its first real use case (presumably XFS) both reaches an upstream. Logically we should fix existing problems first and then do not add more (technical debt). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko