Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Oct 2002 22:03:00 -0800 (PST) | From | "Randy.Dunlap" <> | Subject | Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH] Updated sys_epoll now with man pages |
| |
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Davide Libenzi wrote:
| On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Randy.Dunlap wrote: | | > Yes, I knew that and I thought about it while typing, but | > my dynamic RAM was too dynamic and not being refreshed often | > enough. Thanks for doing it for me. | | I knew it, I already sent you the links before :) Yep. 8:)
| > BTW, I didn't mean unpopular for the epoll patch, I meant | > unpopular in general, especially for development kernel patches: | > if every new feature required docs along with it, it might slow | > down Linux development by one day, but help out everyone in | > the long run (tm?). | | I do agree Randy about comments, don't get me wrong. But you know what my | job condition is :) Looking at the kernel source though, you find | something like : | | /* add the fd to the interest set */ | do_add_fd_to_the_interest_set(); | | and then you have the code that really would need comments completely | naked. While, again, I do agree that comments are completely missing in | the patch, I'm not that kind of guy that would like a function like : | | static struct epitem *ep_find_nl(struct eventpoll *ep, int fd) | { ... | } | | commented with "search an fd inside the hash". What a comment like that | adds to this code ?
nada.
Just to be clear (and reiterate), my comments were not about the epoll patch, but about adding new features/kernel APIs/etc in general.
Later, -- ~Randy
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |