Re: [PATCH 1/3] notifier: Fix broken error handling pattern

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 07:13:34AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 09:38:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > @@ -156,43 +169,30 @@ int atomic_notifier_chain_unregister(str
> > > >  }
> > > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(atomic_notifier_chain_unregister);
> > > >  
> > > > -/**
> > > > - *	__atomic_notifier_call_chain - Call functions in an atomic notifier chain
> > > > - *	@nh: Pointer to head of the atomic notifier chain
> > > > - *	@val: Value passed unmodified to notifier function
> > > > - *	@v: Pointer passed unmodified to notifier function
> > > > - *	@nr_to_call: See the comment for notifier_call_chain.
> > > > - *	@nr_calls: See the comment for notifier_call_chain.
> > > > - *
> > > > - *	Calls each function in a notifier chain in turn.  The functions
> > > > - *	run in an atomic context, so they must not block.
> > > > - *	This routine uses RCU to synchronize with changes to the chain.
> > > > - *
> > > > - *	If the return value of the notifier can be and'ed
> > > > - *	with %NOTIFY_STOP_MASK then atomic_notifier_call_chain()
> > > > - *	will return immediately, with the return value of
> > > > - *	the notifier function which halted execution.
> > > > - *	Otherwise the return value is the return value
> > > > - *	of the last notifier function called.
> > > > - */
> > > 
> > > Why remove the useful comment?
> > 
> > Because I delete the whole function ?
> 
> I viewed it as more of a rename... Regardless would the comment not
> still be useful for the non-double-underscore version of the function?

I never got that far, I just deleted the whole thing without reading it.
But yes, with a few tweaks it should apply to the normal function.