lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] Documentation: livepatch: Add livepatch API page
Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote on Thu [2021-Dec-16 10:57:04 +0100]:

> This change is not good. The function releases all existing shadow
> variables with the given @id for any @obj. And it is not longer clear.

Good point. I'll address that in v3.

> I guess that the primary motivation was to remove "Inline emphasis
> start-string without end string" mentioned in the commit message.

Yes, this was the primary and only motivation. <*, id> is much clearer and I'm
with you on finding a better alternative.

> A solution would be replace '*' with something else, for example, < , id>.

I think this is better than just obj, but in my opinion this may be confusing
for readers and look like a typo. I think I prefer your second suggestion,
though obj really makes more sense in the case where we're actually passing an
@obj to the function. I'll probably (deservedly?) get lambasted for suggesting
this, but what about taking a page out of rust's book and doing something like
this:

* klp_shadow_free_all() - detach and free all <_, id> shadow variables
* with the given @id.

to indicate that in this case we don't care about the obj. Even for a reader
unfamiliar with rust, hopefully it would get the point across.

> Another solution would be to describe it another way, for example:
>
> * klp_shadow_free_all() - detach and free all <obj, id> shadow variables
> * with the given @id.

I'm fine with this as well. Let me know what you think about <_, id> vs. what
you suggested, and I'll send out the v3 patch with your preference.

> BTW: There is likely the same problem in Documentation/livepatch/shadow-vars.rst.
> I see <*, id> there as well.

Indeed you're correct. There's no warning in the build system because there
happen to be two <*, id> ... <*, id> in a row, so rst happily italicizes what's
between them without question. I'll fix this in the v3 of the patch as well.

> Otherwise, the patch looks fine to me.

Thanks for taking a look and for the helpful suggestions.

- David

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-16 16:01    [W:0.204 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site