On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 16:55:34 -0700 Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
