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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <20200328110351.4e50491e@lwn.net>
In-Reply-To: <20200328110351.4e50491e@lwn.net>
From:   Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
Date:   Sat, 28 Mar 2020 14:46:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGETcx_Y-S=tAZiiymB2qWdx0uKzoDnGcmPoOr8EkOUsi6A0mg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add documentation on meaning of -EPROBE_DEFER
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 10:03 AM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
>
> 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...:)

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

Thanks,
Saravana