From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5054C43331 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 21:46:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA20220716 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 21:46:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="qTskBs0Y" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727770AbgC1Vqq (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Mar 2020 17:46:46 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-f67.google.com ([209.85.210.67]:39162 "EHLO mail-ot1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726604AbgC1Vqq (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Mar 2020 17:46:46 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f67.google.com with SMTP id x11so13871624otp.6 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 14:46:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nPXNxsOZ3C7pRcm5mKIgZGPNm3UgML/++VJMRLMb3AI=; b=qTskBs0YmHh+tZEs84jHvRBn/43ZsP4wf1/5WCdmRZJ0AsdWtvM4X04ADXXYAcSi8J iLeuHFAS97j2PhIz3A+o9X0tQ/qo19nMFjGDx6kweTbNWQ50pCz+FFZgDHYxQEo+Bf8I KKUuqmBa53G1zkdO2LnPVx68/t2Gv3WUSP5Bks4cKmZuNLvUKbX4MoFxbGSp4N1a6BzK etcXqxEdv4quoP2Hoh5SAao+bAcBWdrE3l+d7oJgXG6uYq5vqlxRy3VS6HN7x0VDW6fR E1+45JyNk1fHKvAP1+4FzhLZHmRRJ3WLvm2JmPvMcfbDLCdja5/kOaJcDfF4c8pPwly9 xgcw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nPXNxsOZ3C7pRcm5mKIgZGPNm3UgML/++VJMRLMb3AI=; b=g7w/JA66qWhOaC9P88jIIgE6QOjyT4t5wumRQvOR1i2N0MC2IOqYexNBQdknhHFpba Odbt2DBQeDcmq8TjCzS9nSmyhRl+GRWgKMBIN9xGDAJp+raFcDAm5TIg2ln98Nzg5IYz nGhoIZduelZsujNTNthxDnJvDhXE24IAHRt4L+GqL5EIrs9HZMxuA7WVKYJWlRGNeels G4IeA+m0NOg0BR9baooEvl0u4N7uW/W5G5xjQD7iIl2z05NWZK2pxV2YI/varIr7oZLr tUpho/accs4X9LfFI+PFgL7eyOoW2oUh4ccnYHcFYgu5HKXxqGeXsh9tNx0XlQM21fLC LJ8g== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2uuLTPBuSo5HBvOFaCOSonCEH3gWs7iVeoEgi1wgSLTQ363F6y vfjBIf1zV5R490sqn9DuTU7Ra1OEx+kle6GszH+MCg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvO4/e4aHB57owXkNgpgc4HV0D0tikOOK0ubtXnhm0OhkMPch3zJcOJ9Q4m/i7MsgSphG9JBcOGlz6Ynv6bL7Q= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:42f:: with SMTP id 44mr3947412otc.236.1585432003872; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 14:46:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200327170132.17275-1-grant.likely@arm.com> <2885b440-77a5-f2be-7524-d5fba2b0c08a@arm.com> <20200328110351.4e50491e@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <20200328110351.4e50491e@lwn.net> From: Saravana Kannan Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 14:46:07 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add documentation on meaning of -EPROBE_DEFER To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: Grant Likely , Linux Doc Mailing List , LKML , nd@arm.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andy Shevchenko Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 10:03 AM Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 16:55:34 -0700 > Saravana Kannan 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