Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] x86: cpu/bugs: update SpectreRSB comments for AMD

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 04:43:58PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > This comment relates to the "why" for the code itself (and its poor
> > confused developers), taking all the RSB-related vulnerabilities into
> > account.
> 
> So use Documentation/arch/x86/.
> 
> This is exactly the reason why we need more "why" documentation - because
> everytime we have to swap the whole bugs.c horror back in, we're poor confused
> developers. And we have the "why" spread out across commit messages and other
> folklore which means everytime we have to change stuff, the git archeology
> starts. :-\ "err, do you remember why we're doing this?!" And so on
> converstaions on IRC.
> 
> So having an implementation document explaining clearly why we did things is
> long overdue.
> 
> But it's fine - I can move it later when the dust settles here.

I think in-line documentation is better in this case: the primary defense
against mistakes and misunderstandings is in the source code itself.

And "it's too long" is an argument *against* moving it out into some obscure
place 99% of developers aren't even aware of...

Thanks,

	Ingo