Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:49:11 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | 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@linutronix.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
| |