Re: [PATCH 2/3] jump_label: Provide static_key_slow_inc_nohp()

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:08:35 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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