On Fri, 2024-10-11 at 17:21 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > + > > + /* We should never reach this point */ > > No pronouns. Yes, it's nitpicky, but "we" gets _very_ ambiguous when "we" could > mean the admin, the user, the VMM, KVM, the guest, etc. > > > + GUEST_ASSERT(0); Is there really *any* way that can be interpreted as anything other than "the CPU executing this code will never get to this point and that's why there's an ASSERT(0) right after this comment"? I don't believe there's *any* way that particular pronoun can be ambiguous, and now we've got to the point of fetishising the bizarre "no pronouns" rule just for the sake of it. I get it, especially for some individuals it *can* be difficult to take context into account, and the wilful use of pronouns instead of spelling things out explicitly *every* *single* *time* can sometimes help. But at a cost of conciseness and brevity.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
