[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170419084911.61e0e965@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:49:11 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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 11:08:35 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > 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.
I agree with Thomas. Removing the comment because a
"lockdep_assert_held()" exists at the top of the code, assumes someone
that is about to use that function did more that read the kerneldoc and
actually looked at the code.
If there's a kerneldoc to a function, than that header should contain
all the info that a developer needs to use that function.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists