2021-02-26 21:09:47

by Peter Zijlstra

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held()

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:52:13AM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
> + /* avoid false negative lockdep_assert_not_held()
> + * and lockdep_assert_held()
> + */

That's a coding style fail.


2021-02-26 21:17:40

by Shuah Khan

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held()

On 2/26/21 2:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:52:13AM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> + /* avoid false negative lockdep_assert_not_held()
>> + * and lockdep_assert_held()
>> + */
>
> That's a coding style fail.
>

Checkpatch didn't complain. What's your preference? Does the
following work for you?

/*
* avoid false negative lockdep_assert_not_held()
* and lockdep_assert_held()
*/

thanks,
-- Shuah

2021-03-01 08:31:04

by Peter Zijlstra

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held()

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 02:16:12PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 2/26/21 2:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:52:13AM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > > + /* avoid false negative lockdep_assert_not_held()
> > > + * and lockdep_assert_held()
> > > + */
> >
> > That's a coding style fail.
> >
>
> Checkpatch didn't complain.

Documentation/CodingStyle

(or whatever unreadable rst crap it is today :-( )

and:

https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]om/

> What's your preference? Does the following work for you?
>
> /*
> * avoid false negative lockdep_assert_not_held()
> * and lockdep_assert_held()
> */

Yep (ideally even with a Capital and full stop).