On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:36:33 +0100 Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > But it doesn't explain *why* we want the alarm to trigger before > > returning. > > Should we really require every power-off handler to document arch > behaviour (even if its inconsistent and currently undocumented); in > this case that some arches return to user-space where we may oops if > called from process 0 (e.g. systemd, but not if using sysvinit)? The kernel really doesn't have a problem related to excessive amounts of useful code comments :( The bottom line is: did I provide a reader with the ability to understand why the code is this way? If "no" then improvements beckon. This does look like one code site where an elaborate explanation is warranted. There's no way in which a reader can get to your above paragraph from the current rtc-omap.c. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
