linux-kernel - Re: Fork Bombing Patch

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20070817020530.29935240.pj@sgi.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:05:30 -0700
From:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To:	Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>
Cc:	anandjigar@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fork Bombing Patch

I agree that (1) one risks overdoing comments and (2) one should minimize
comments inside a function body.

But I read your earlier statement:

  Please do not add comments inside functions.

as simply requesting no comments inside function bodies, without
exception.  That seems to me to be too strong a statement.

The "try to avoid" in the CodingStyle I read as meaning roughly
"minimize" which is consistent with what it further states, allowing
for "small comments" in certain cases.

Admittedly, I probably agree with you that the command that Anand
added in his patch was one of those comments that didn't add enough
value to be justified.

I was just quibbling over the wording of your objections to it.

 ... I'll shut up now.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.925.600.0401
-
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/