Russell,
> Jamey Hicks writes:
> > Actually, I have trouble with the routines that do not
> > follow the standard calling convention, such as _lookup_processor_type.
I
> > keep recommenting the code with those exceptions, e.g.,
> > bl __lookup_processor_type @ returns values in
r8, r9, r10
> > ...
> > bl __lookup_architecture_type @ returns values in
r5, r6, r7
> > ...
> > bl __create_page_tables @ uses r5, r6, r8,
r8
>
> The problem above is a good example of bad comments actually. Lets say
someone
> modifies __lookup_processor_type to return a value in r11, and
__create_page_tables
> to use the value in r11. They're not really going to update
> those comments.
I think there are enough eyeballs looking at this code and submitting
patches that we ought to be able to maintain a few partial lines of
comments.
I should hope anyone who modifies what __lookup_processor_type does looks at
where it is called and updates the caller as well.
I think a few more comments would help increase the size of the linux hacker
community.
-Jamey
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
++ Please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for ++
++ kernel-related discussions. ++
