Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Fri, 30 May 2008 08:32:51 -0700 | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/2] cpusets: restructure the function update_cpumask() and update_nodemask() |
| |
On Fri, 30 May 2008 01:25:37 -0500 Paul Jackson wrote:
> Randy wrote: > > Does that help? your understanding of kernel-doc or your decision? > > Well, I get the difference between E (exported) and I (non-exported) > now. And I see that one could prepare documents using SGML templates > that contained one, or the other of these, for any kernel source files > of interest. > > I'm stuck on the next step of this decision. > > Usually, when I am preparing documens, I know what document I am > preparing and have an idea who is in its audience. > > I have never seen or heard of a document using the "/**" kernel-doc > entries of kernel/cpuset.c, and I have no idea who actually has (in > the past or present, not just hypothetically) read such or why.
You are certainly welcome to add kernel/cpuset.c to kernel-api.tmpl or any other appropriate docbook file. I have been known to do things like that as well. :)
> So I'm kinda shootin in the dark here. > > So, mostly just to be consistent with my previous call, because I enjoy > being a stubborn retard, I continue to prefer that file static routines > in kernel/cpuset.c not have "/**" kernel-doc markers on their comments, > and I would still welcome a patch from Miao removing the ones already > there. > > Enough of this discussion, from me at least.
--- ~Randy "He closes his eyes and drops the goggles. You can't get hurt by looking at a bitmap. Or can you?"
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |