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]

Date:   Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:21:38 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 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 16:08:04 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:


> Yeah, rainbows and unicorns are shiny. Also, I put kerneldoc (if I put
> it at all) at the definition site, not the declaration. So headers are
> useless.

What's wrong with rainbows and unicorns. We all have our ponys, and
some of them are unicorns.

https://www.slideshare.net/brendangregg/velocity-2015-linux-perf-tools/105

> 
> 
> In any case, I don't mind the extra line of comment. Don't really see
> the point of it either. What I am convinced of is that
> lockdep_assert_held() lines are far more useful than such comment lines.

I agree with the lockdep assert held being more useful. But I disagree
with removing comments about required locks when it is added. A comment
may save a developer an embarrassing moment of being yelled at because
they didn't test their code with lockdep enabled. And that is useful.

-- Steve