[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bd116c27908111619b6cfffbe9a25e98e0e7cc20.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 17:27:05 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, Ivan Orlov <iorlov@...zon.com>
Cc: bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...hat.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, shuah@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, jalliste@...zon.com,
nh-open-source@...zon.com, pdurrant@...zon.co.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] selftests: KVM: Add test case for MMIO during event
delivery
On Fri, 2024-10-11 at 17:21 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>
> > +
> > + /* We should never reach this point */
>
> No pronouns. Yes, it's nitpicky, but "we" gets _very_ ambiguous when "we" could
> mean the admin, the user, the VMM, KVM, the guest, etc.
>
> > + GUEST_ASSERT(0);
Is there really *any* way that can be interpreted as anything other
than "the CPU executing this code will never get to this point and
that's why there's an ASSERT(0) right after this comment"?
I don't believe there's *any* way that particular pronoun can be
ambiguous, and now we've got to the point of fetishising the bizarre
"no pronouns" rule just for the sake of it.
I get it, especially for some individuals it *can* be difficult to take
context into account, and the wilful use of pronouns instead of
spelling things out explicitly *every* *single* *time* can sometimes
help. But at a cost of conciseness and brevity.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (5965 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists