Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Mon [2021-Dec-13 12:10:22 -0800]: > The patch description needs a few tweaks. In the kernel we don't use > Markdown for patch descriptions. > > A function can be postfixed with a trailing pair of parentheses, like > klp_enable_patch(). > > Other symbols can be enclosed with single quotes, like 'struct > klp_object'. > > I'd also recommend avoiding the excessive use of "we", in favor of more > imperative-type language. > > See Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for more details. It's > also a good idea to look at some kernel commit logs to get a general > idea of the kernel patch description style. Understood, I'll take a read through and re-submit the patch to honor the norms for Linux kernel patches. My sincere apologies for the noise, and thank you for the positive and constructive suggestions. > I don't think the fix will be quite that simple. For example, if > klp_init_patch_early() fails, that means try_module_get() hasn't been > done, so klp_free_patch_finish() will wrongly do a module_put(). Ugh, good point and thank you for catching that. Another problem with the current patch is that we'll call kobject_put() on the patch even if we never call kobject_init on the patch due to patch->objs being NULL. Perhaps we should pull try_module_get() and the NULL check for patch->objs out of klp_init_patch_early()? It feels a bit more intuitive to me if klp_init_patch_early() were only be responsible for initializing kobjects for the patch and its objects / funcs anyways. Testing it locally seems to work fine. Let me know if this sounds reasonable to you, and I'll send out a v2 patch with the fixes to both the patch description, and logic. - David
