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

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:08:04 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> 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.

What's wrong with rainbows and unicorns. We all have our ponys, and
some of them are unicorns.

https://www.slideshare.net/brendangregg/velocity-2015-linux-perf-tools/105

> 
> 
> 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.

I agree with the lockdep assert held being more useful. But I disagree
with removing comments about required locks when it is added. A comment
may save a developer an embarrassing moment of being yelled at because
they didn't test their code with lockdep enabled. And that is useful.

-- Steve