Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> 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
