On Wed, 19 Apr 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:50:43PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Apr 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:46:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:03:50 +0200 > > > > Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/padata.c > > > > > @@ -1008,11 +1008,10 @@ static struct padata_instance *padata_al > > > > > * parallel workers. > > > > > * > > > > > * @wq: workqueue to use for the allocated padata instance > > > > > - * > > > > > - * Must be called from a get_online_cpus() protected region > > > > > > > > Find the comment redundant? > > > > > > Once there's code that enforces it? Yes. Nobody reads comments > > > ;-) > > > > Nobody enables lockdep either ..... > > In the grand scheme of things, true. But there are more people running > with lockdep enabled than there are people writing code, of which there > are more than people reading relevant comments while writing code. > Therefore having the lockdep annotation is two orders better than a > comment ;-) > > Also, I would argue that an "assert" at the start of a function is a > fairly readable 'comment' all by itself. > > In any case, I don't care too much. But I typically remove such comments > when I stick a lockdep_assert_held() in.
I think that's wrong. We are striving for better documentation and the kernel-doc comments above a function are part of that. Calling conventions are definitely something which belongs there. Thanks, tglx