Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 28 Mar 2020 11:03:51 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To:     Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
Cc:     Grant Likely <grant.likely@arm.com>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, nd@arm.com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add documentation on meaning of -EPROBE_DEFER
Message-ID: <20200328110351.4e50491e@lwn.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAGETcx_0=W6P_Zf-6fvDfncXUrPvt31bf6de-RWwHaXtwJizmQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200327170132.17275-1-grant.likely@arm.com>
        <CAGETcx8CJqMQaHBj1r5MhNBTw7Smz4BRHPkB0kCUCJPSmW6KwA@mail.gmail.com>
        <2885b440-77a5-f2be-7524-d5fba2b0c08a@arm.com>
        <CAGETcx_0=W6P_Zf-6fvDfncXUrPvt31bf6de-RWwHaXtwJizmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: LWN.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 16:55:34 -0700
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> 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...:)  

Thanks,

jon