Re: [PATCH 1/6] genalloc: track beginning of allocations

[Kees Cook]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 13/02/18 01:52, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> @@ -738,14 +1031,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(devm_gen_pool_create);
>>>
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_OF
>>>  /**
>>> - * of_gen_pool_get - find a pool by phandle property
>>> + * of_gen_pool_get() - find a pool by phandle property
>>>   * @np: device node
>>>   * @propname: property name containing phandle(s)
>>>   * @index: index into the phandle array
>>>   *
>>> - * Returns the pool that contains the chunk starting at the physical
>>> - * address of the device tree node pointed at by the phandle property,
>>> - * or NULL if not found.
>>> + * Return:
>>> + * * pool address      - it contains the chunk starting at the physical
>>> + *                       address of the device tree node pointed at by
>>> + *                       the phandle property
>>> + * * NULL              - otherwise
>>>   */
>>>  struct gen_pool *of_gen_pool_get(struct device_node *np,
>>>         const char *propname, int index)
>>
>> I wonder if this might be more readable by splitting the kernel-doc
>> changes from the bitmap changes? I.e. fix all the kernel-doc in one
>> patch, and in the following, make the bitmap changes. Maybe it's such
>> a small part that it doesn't matter, though?
>
> I had the same thought, but then I would have made most of the kerneldoc
> changes to something that would be altered by the following patch,
> because it would have made little sense to fix only those parts that
> would have survived.
>
> If it is really a problem to keep them together, I could put these
> changes in a following patch. Would that be ok?

Hmmm... I think keeping it as-is would be better than a trailing
docs-only patch. Maybe Jon has an opinion?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security