linux-kernel - Re: [patch] eventfd - revised interface and cleanups (2nd rev)

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: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0906231428460.17001@makko.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	avi@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, ghaskins@...ell.com,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] eventfd - revised interface and cleanups (2nd rev)

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > Should functions be describing all the returned error codes, ala man pages?
> > 
> 
> I think so.

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...

- Davide

--
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/