On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 06:44:07PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > Add a document to the subsystem/maintainer handbook section, which explains
> > what the tip tree is, how it operates and what rules and expectations it
> > has.
>
> Peter asked me to add a section about locking comments. I added it and
> forgot to refresh the patch before sending. Delta patch below.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
> ---
> --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst
> @@ -578,6 +578,29 @@ Sentences in comments start with a upper
> usage of descriptive function names often replaces these tiny comments.
> Apply common sense as always.
>
> +
> +Documenting locking requirements
> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> + Documenting locking requirements is a good thing, but comments are not
> + necessarily the best choice. Instead of writing::
> +
> + /* Caller must hold foo->lock */
> + void func(struct foo *foo)
> + {
> + ...
> + }
> +
> + Please use::
> +
> + void func(struct foo *foo)
> + {
> + lockdep_assert_held(&foo->lock);
> + ...
> + }
> +
> + The latter enables run time debugging when lockdep is enabled which
> + verifies that all callers hold the lock. Comments can't do that.
In PROVE_LOCKING kernels, lockdep_assert_held() emits a warning
if the caller doesn't hold the lock. Comments can't do that.
Thanx, Paul
