Re: [PATCH 2/3] jump_label: Provide static_key_slow_inc_nohp()

From	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 2/3] jump_label: Provide static_key_slow_inc_nohp()
Date	2017-04-19 14:50 +0200
Message-ID	<txXdv-3vn-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <txEuf-8r4-45@gated-at.bofh.it> <txHV8-29d-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <txIo9-2iz-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <txRrs-8mT-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <txTMB-1zl-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:08:35 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:


> > In the grand scheme of things, true. But there are more people running
> > with lockdep enabled than there are people writing code, of which there
> > are more than people reading relevant comments while writing code.
> > Therefore having the lockdep annotation is two orders better than a
> > comment ;-)
> > 
> > Also, I would argue that an "assert" at the start of a function is a
> > fairly readable 'comment' all by itself.
> > 
> > In any case, I don't care too much. But I typically remove such comments
> > when I stick a lockdep_assert_held() in.  
> 
> I think that's wrong. We are striving for better documentation and the
> kernel-doc comments above a function are part of that. Calling conventions
> are definitely something which belongs there.

I agree with Thomas. Removing the comment because a
"lockdep_assert_held()" exists at the top of the code, assumes someone
that is about to use that function did more that read the kerneldoc and
actually looked at the code.

If there's a kerneldoc to a function, than that header should contain
all the info that a developer needs to use that function.

-- Steve

Thread

[PATCH 2/3] jump_label: Provide static_key_slow_inc_nohp() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-18 12:40 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 2/3] jump_label: Provide static_key_slow_inc_nohp() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-18 15:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 2/3] jump_label: Provide static_key_slow_inc_nohp() Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-04-18 18:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 2/3] jump_label: Provide static_key_slow_inc_nohp() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-18 22:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 2/3] jump_label: Provide static_key_slow_inc_nohp() Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-04-18 23:00 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 2/3] jump_label: Provide static_key_slow_inc_nohp() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-19 08:40 +0200
            Re: [PATCH 2/3] jump_label: Provide static_key_slow_inc_nohp() Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-04-19 11:10 +0200
              Re: [PATCH 2/3] jump_label: Provide static_key_slow_inc_nohp() Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-04-19 14:50 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 2/3] jump_label: Provide static_key_slow_inc_nohp() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-19 16:10 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 2/3] jump_label: Provide static_key_slow_inc_nohp() Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-04-19 16:30 +0200
  [tip:smp/hotplug] jump_label: Provide  static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked() "tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <tipbot@zytor.com> - 2017-04-20 13:40 +0200

csiph-web