On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 16:26 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 07:14:17AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > Peter Zijlstra prefers that comments be required near uses > > of memory barriers. > > > > Change the message level for memory barrier uses from a > > --strict test only to a normal WARN so it's always emitted. > > > > This might produce false positives around insertions of > > memory barriers when a comment is outside the patch context > > block. > > One would argue that in that case they're too far away in any case :-) > > > And checkpatch is still stupid, it only looks for existence > > of any comment, not at the comment content. > > Could we try and alleviate this by giving a slightly more verbose > warning? > Maybe something like: > > memory barrier without comment; please refer to the pairing barrier and > describe the ordering requirements. That would make it seem as if all barriers are SMP no? Maybe just refer to Documentation/memory-barriers.txt and/or say something like "please document appropriately" -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>