Add a kernel-doc comment in kernel.h to document the macro
`u64_to_user_ptr`.
As of today, this macro is mentioned in the documentation in
'ioctl.rst' and 'botching-up-ioctls.rst'
Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/kernel.h | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h
index fe6efb24d151..8bcd126f64f2 100644
--- a/include/linux/kernel.h
+++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
@@ -56,6 +56,10 @@
#define PTR_IF(cond, ptr) ((cond) ? (ptr) : NULL)
+/**
+ * u64_to_user_ptr - convert an unsigned 64bit number into a user pointer
+ * @x: the number to convert
+ */
#define u64_to_user_ptr(x) ( \
{ \
typecheck(u64, (x)); \
--
2.30.2
On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 07:43:49PM +0100, Federico Vaga wrote:
> Add a kernel-doc comment in kernel.h to document the macro
> `u64_to_user_ptr`.
We refer functions as func(), so `u64_to_user_ptr` --> u64_to_user_ptr().
> As of today, this macro is mentioned in the documentation in
> 'ioctl.rst' and 'botching-up-ioctls.rst'
Missing period at the end.
...
> +/**
> + * u64_to_user_ptr - convert an unsigned 64bit number into a user pointer
64-bit
> + * @x: the number to convert
Isn't 'number' is a bit misleading here?
It decodes the user pointer, that is encoded into unsigned 64-bit value.
Unfortunately I am not a native speaker, I can't propose anything better.
It might be that the 'number' is quite good choice, dunno.
> + */
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 09:03:34PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 07:43:49PM +0100, Federico Vaga wrote:
>> Add a kernel-doc comment in kernel.h to document the macro
>> `u64_to_user_ptr`.
>
>We refer functions as func(), so `u64_to_user_ptr` --> u64_to_user_ptr().
>
>> As of today, this macro is mentioned in the documentation in
>> 'ioctl.rst' and 'botching-up-ioctls.rst'
>
>Missing period at the end.
>
>...
>
>> +/**
>> + * u64_to_user_ptr - convert an unsigned 64bit number into a user pointer
>
>64-bit
>
>> + * @x: the number to convert
>
>Isn't 'number' is a bit misleading here?
>It decodes the user pointer, that is encoded into unsigned 64-bit value.
>Unfortunately I am not a native speaker, I can't propose anything better.
>It might be that the 'number' is quite good choice, dunno.
I agree about the macro's purpose. However, it does its job even if the 64-bit
value isn't a valid pointer (and this is what you will get). For this reason I
used a generic "number".
>> + */
>
>--
>With Best Regards,
>Andy Shevchenko
>
>
--
Federico Vaga