| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:07:28 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, avi@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, ghaskins@...ell.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, bcrl@...ck.org Subject: Re: [patch] eventfd - revised interface and cleanups (2nd rev) On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org> wrote: > > > This becomes pretty painful when the function calls other functions, for > > > which just relays the error code. > > > Should we be just documenting the error codes introduced by the function > > > code, and say that the function returns errors A, B, C plus all the ones > > > returned by the called functions X, Y, Z? > > > If not, it becomes hell in maintaining the comments... > > > > Well. Don't worry about making rules. Taste and common sense apply. "Will > > it be useful to readers if I explicitly document the return value". If > > "yes" then document away. If "no" then don't. > > Are you OK with the format in the patch below? Looks great to me. Obviously the cost of maintaining this level of detail is fairly high, and the chances of bitrot are also high. So I wouldn't be expecting people to document things at this level in general. But if you're prepared to maintain this then good for you. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists