From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S933616AbdDSJJM (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 19 Apr 2017 05:09:12 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:55599 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1761553AbdDSJIr (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 19 Apr 2017 05:08:47 -0400
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:08:35 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, jbaron@akamai.com,
        mingo@kernel.org, bigeasy@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] jump_label: Provide static_key_slow_inc_nohp()
In-Reply-To: <20170419063918.3z2ndmmtn2xwrb6r@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704191107170.1829@nanos>
References: <20170418103213.089888286@infradead.org> <20170418103422.636958338@infradead.org> <20170418130350.cwfij23vc4ybklkp@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170418124629.13316f8d@gandalf.local.home> <20170418202708.d5xn2l5gn3mktbe5@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704182250180.8081@nanos> <20170419063918.3z2ndmmtn2xwrb6r@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:50:43PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Apr 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:46:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:03:50 +0200
> > > > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/padata.c
> > > > > @@ -1008,11 +1008,10 @@ static struct padata_instance *padata_al
> > > > >   *                         parallel workers.
> > > > >   *
> > > > >   * @wq: workqueue to use for the allocated padata instance
> > > > > - *
> > > > > - * Must be called from a get_online_cpus() protected region
> > > > 
> > > > Find the comment redundant?
> > > 
> > > Once there's code that enforces it? Yes. Nobody reads comments
> > > ;-)
> > 
> > Nobody enables lockdep either .....
> 
> 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.

Thanks,

	tglx