On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 10:03 AM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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...:) Ok, all of you have convinced me of the error of my ways. :) Thanks, Saravana
