[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180108092917.591359aa@lwn.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 09:29:17 -0700
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/18] Documentation: document nospec helpers
On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 17:10:03 -0800
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> Document the rationale and usage of the new nospec*() helpers.
I have just a couple of overall comments.
- It would be nice if the document were done in RST and placed in the
core-API manual, perhaps using kerneldoc comments for the macros
themselves. It's already 99.9% RST now, so the changes required would
be minimal.
- More importantly: is there any way at all to give guidance to
developers wondering *when* they should use these primitives? I think
it would be easy to create a situation where they don't get used where
they are really needed; meanwhile, there may well be a flood of
"helpful" patches adding them where they make no sense at all.
Thanks,
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists