From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-f198.google.com (mail-qt0-f198.google.com [209.85.216.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6956B000A for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 06:36:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qt0-f198.google.com with SMTP id f21so12834552qtm.11 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 03:36:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com. [148.163.156.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s62si6483404qkb.266.2018.02.12.03.36.44 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Feb 2018 03:36:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w1CBZM3E030840 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 06:36:44 -0500 Received: from e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.110]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2g35j3jnga-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 06:36:43 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:36:40 -0000 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:36:33 +0200 From: Mike Rapoport Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] genalloc: track beginning of allocations References: <20180211031920.3424-1-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20180211031920.3424-2-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20180211122444.GB13931@rapoport-lnx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20180212113633.GC20737@rapoport-lnx> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Igor Stoppa Cc: willy@infradead.org, rdunlap@infradead.org, corbet@lwn.net, keescook@chromium.org, mhocko@kernel.org, labbott@redhat.com, jglisse@redhat.com, hch@infradead.org, cl@linux.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 01:17:01PM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote: > > > On 11/02/18 14:24, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 05:19:15AM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote: > [...] > > >> +/** > >> + * mem_to_units - convert references to memory into orders of allocation > > > > Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst recommends to to include brackets > > for function comments. I haven't noticed any difference in the resulting > > html, so I'm not sure if the brackets are actually required. > > This is what I see in the example from mailine docs: > > /** > * foobar() - Brief description of foobar. > * @argument1: Description of parameter argument1 of foobar. > * @argument2: Description of parameter argument2 of foobar. > * > * Longer description of foobar. > * > * Return: Description of return value of foobar. > */ > int foobar(int argument1, char *argument2) > > > What are you referring to? I'm referring to "foobar() - brief description" vs "foobar - brief description". The generated html looks exactly the same in the browser, so I don't know if the brackets are really required. > [...] > > >> + * @size: amount in bytes > >> + * @order: power of 2 represented by each entry in the bitmap > >> + * > >> + * Returns the number of units representing the size. > > > > Please s/Return/Return:/ > > :-( I thought I had fixed them all. thanks for spotting this. > > [...] > > >> + * Return: If two users alter the same bit, to one it will return > >> + * remaining entries, to the other it will return 0. > > > > And what if there are three or four concurrent users? ;-) > > > > I believe that a more elaborate description about what happens with > > concurrent attempts to alter the bitmap would be really helpful. > > ok > > -- > thanks, igor > -- Sincerely yours, Mike. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org