From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cong Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/14] bridge: add some comments for NETDEV_RELEASE Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:38:06 +0800 Message-ID: <1344566286.17296.4.camel@cr0> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, David Miller , Stephen Hemminger To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40430 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751439Ab2HJCiU (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 22:38:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 09:44 -1000, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > If you are going to add an explanation, then I would prefer a more complete one. Something like: > "Since more than one interface can be attached to a bridge, there still maybe an alternate path for netconsole to use; therefore there is no reason for a NETDEV_RELEASE event." Yeah, this is better. > > But my opinion it really isn't necessary to document what isn't done in the code, only what is done. The purpose of comments is to explain the wider impacts of the code. The reason why I add it is to remind people like me who forgot the reason behind. ;) Thanks.