Re: [RFC PATCH] explicitly mark recursion count

["Jörn Engel" <joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>]

On Wed, 2 June 2004 08:12:00 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > 
> > Can I read this as:
> > Linus himself will use strong words to enforce all recursions in the
> > kernel to be either removed or properly documented.
> 
> If we have a good detector that is reliable and easy to run, why not?

Great!  So the official format to document recursions is plain english
for human readers?

> It will take some time, but I think the problem so far has been that the
> recursion can be hard to see. Some "core" cases are well-known (memory
> allocations during memory allocation, and filename lookup), and they 
> should be trivial to annotate. Knock wood. Others might be worse.

For sure.  There are some functions with multiple recursions around
them, real fun! :)

> > In that case, you have 273 recursions to deal with.  They are all in
> > the data I attached a few posts back.  Recursions would basically be
> > in the same league as huge stack hogs, sounds good.
> 
> Yes. And with huge stack hogs, we've not exactly "fixed them all in a 
> weekend", have we? But having a few people run the checking tools and 
> nagging every once in a while ends up eventually fixing things. At least 
> the most common ones.

s/a few people/Jörn/

Legal reasons.  I'll try to do this from time to time.

Jörn

-- 
To recognize individual spam features you have to try to get into the
mind of the spammer, and frankly I want to spend as little time inside
the minds of spammers as possible.
-- Paul Graham