>> The function "kmem_cache_alloc" was specified despite of the technical >> detail that this function does not get a parameter passed which would >> correspond to such a size information. >> >> Thus remove it from the first two SmPL rules and omit the rule "r4". > > Nack.
I find such a rejection surprising once more. > It should be supported by the size determined in another way. I am curious on how our different views could be clarified further for this special software situation. * Do we agree that a proper size determination is essential for every condition in the discussed SmPL rules together with forwarding this information? * How can a name be ever relevant (within the published SmPL approach) for a function when it was designed in the way that it should generally work without a size parameter? Regards, Markus
