Re: [PATCH] Add documentation on meaning of -EPROBE_DEFER

[Saravana Kannan]

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 10:03 AM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 16:55:34 -0700
> Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > The infinite loop is a current implementation behavior. Not an
> > > > intentional choice. So, maybe we can say the behavior is undefined
> > > > instead?
> > >
> > > If you feel strongly about it, but I don't have any problem with
> > > documenting it as the current implementation behaviour, and then
> > > changing the text if that ever changes.
> >
> > Assuming Greg is okay with this doc update, I'm kinda leaning towards
> > "undefined" because if documented as "infinite loop" people might be
> > hesitant towards removing that behavior. But I'll let Greg make the
> > final call. Not going to NACK for this point.
>
> FWIW, kernel developers have to cope with enough trouble from "undefined
> behavior" already; I don't think we should really be adding that to our
> own docs.  We can certainly document the infinite loop behavior as being
> not guaranteed as part of the API if we're worried that somebody might
> start to rely on it...:)

Ok, all of you have convinced me of the error of my ways. :)

Thanks,
Saravana