linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] jump_label: Provide static_key_slow_inc

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704191107170.1829@nanos>
Date:   Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:08:35 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, jbaron@...mai.com,
        mingo@...nel.org, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] jump_label: Provide static_key_slow_inc_nohp()

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:50:43PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Apr 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:46:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:03:50 +0200
> > > > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/padata.c
> > > > > @@ -1008,11 +1008,10 @@ static struct padata_instance *padata_al
> > > > >   *                         parallel workers.
> > > > >   *
> > > > >   * @wq: workqueue to use for the allocated padata instance
> > > > > - *
> > > > > - * Must be called from a get_online_cpus() protected region
> > > > 
> > > > Find the comment redundant?
> > > 
> > > Once there's code that enforces it? Yes. Nobody reads comments
> > > ;-)
> > 
> > Nobody enables lockdep either .....
> 
> In the grand scheme of things, true. But there are more people running
> with lockdep enabled than there are people writing code, of which there
> are more than people reading relevant comments while writing code.
> Therefore having the lockdep annotation is two orders better than a
> comment ;-)
> 
> Also, I would argue that an "assert" at the start of a function is a
> fairly readable 'comment' all by itself.
> 
> In any case, I don't care too much. But I typically remove such comments
> when I stick a lockdep_assert_held() in.

I think that's wrong. We are striving for better documentation and the
kernel-doc comments above a function are part of that. Calling conventions
are definitely something which belongs there.

Thanks,

	tglx