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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 08:49:11AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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.

No, it doesn't assume anything. You can use the function without reading
_any_ comments. It will explode at runtime (preferably on the machine of
the guy who wrote it -- who _SHOULD_ have lockdep enabled, but certainly
on other developer's machines and test-bots, who will then loudly yell
at said developer for not doing his job properly).

> If there's a kerneldoc to a function, than that header should contain
> all the info that a developer needs to use that function.

Yeah, rainbows and unicorns are shiny. Also, I put kerneldoc (if I put
it at all) at the definition site, not the declaration. So headers are
useless.


In any case, I don't mind the extra line of comment. Don't really see
the point of it either. What I am convinced of is that
lockdep_assert_held() lines are far more useful than such comment lines.