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 <> wrote:


> Please don't put plain-text files into core-api - that's a directory full


>> 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 about SPDX and asked the same
question there.

>> +============================
>> +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.


>> +
>> +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

Reply via email to