linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] perf/x86/uncore: modularize Intel uncore driver

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: <20140418164914.GL22728@two.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Fri, 18 Apr 2014 18:49:14 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, acme@...radead.org, eranian@...gle.com,
	andi@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] perf/x86/uncore: modularize Intel uncore driver

> So I'm not willing to apply this patch until the documentation of 
> perf_event_intel_uncore.c is improved. Right now the file starts 
> without a single comment (!). Just lines after lines of code, without 
> any explanation what it does, what its scope is, etc.
> 
> How should even a knowledgable user know about what it's all about?

While I agree with you that the lack of documentation is bad,
I want to point out that the rest of perf (except for some recent
code from Stephane) doesn't have any such file comments and useful
Kconfig descriptions either.

It seems unfair and inconsistent to require contributors to follow rules that
is not followed by the original code.

-Andi

--
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/