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: <20090623144638.22ca61ea.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:46:38 -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 14:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org> wrote:

> 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...

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.


--
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/