Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Wed, 3 Feb 2021 10:09:20 +0000 | From | Lee Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 12/21] clk: sunxi: clk-sun6i-ar100: Demote non-conformant kernel-doc header |
| |
On Wed, 03 Feb 2021, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 04:54:59PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:45:31PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s): > > > > > > > > drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c:26: warning: Function parameter or member 'req' not described in 'sun6i_get_ar100_factors' > > > > > > > > Cc: "Emilio López" <emilio@elopez.com.ar> > > > > Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com> > > > > Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> > > > > Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> > > > > Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> > > > > Cc: Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@siol.net> > > > > Cc: Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> > > > > Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org > > > > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > > > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c > > > > index e1b7d0929cf7f..54babc2b4b9ee 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c > > > > @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ > > > > > > > > #include "clk-factors.h" > > > > > > > > -/** > > > > +/* > > > > * sun6i_get_ar100_factors - Calculates factors p, m for AR100 > > > > * > > > > * AR100 rate is calculated as follows > > > > > > This is the sixth patch doing the exact same thing over the files in > > > that folder you sent. Please fix all the occurences at once > > > > No. That would make the whole clean-up process 10x harder than it > > already is > > > > Before starting this endeavour there were 18,000+ warnings spread over > > 100's of files and 10's of subsystems that needed addressing (only a > > couple thousand left now thankfully). Some issues vastly different, > > some duplicated (much too much copy/pasting going which made things > > very frustrating at times). > > > > Anyway, in order to work though them all gracefully and in a sensible > > time-frame I had to come up with a workable plan. Each subsystem is > > compiled separately and a script attempts to take out duplicate > > warnings and takes me through the build-log one file at a time. Once > > all of the warnings are fixed in a source-file, it moves on to the > > next file. The method is clean and allows me to handle this > > gargantuan task in bite-sized chunks. > > I mean, you have literally used the same commit log and the same changes > over six different files in the same directory.
Yes, that happens. It's an unfortunate side-effect of the same ol' issues repeating themselves over and over. Mostly due to copy/paste of mundane code segments such as function documentation.
> Sure changes across > different parts of the kernel can be painful, but it's really not what > we're discussing here.
It would have even been painful to post-process patches within the same subsystem. For instance, I've just finished cleaning up GPU which was a mammoth task where most of the issues were perpetually duplicated.
I will admit though, that here in Clock, it would be somewhat easier.
> > Going though and pairing up similar changes is unsustainable for a > > task like this. It would add a lot of additional overhead and would > > slow down the rate of acceptance since source files tend to have > > different reviewers/maintainers - some working faster to review > > patches than others, leading to excessive lag times waiting for that > > one reviewer who takes weeks to review. > > Are you arguing that sending the same patch 6 times is easier and faster > to review for the maintainer than the same changes in a single patch?
The issue I see with the Clock, is that some files are maintained by individual driver Maintainers and others by subsystem Maintainers. So the post-process here is that much more painful (as it can't be easily scripted using get_maintainer.pl) and the aforementioned lag-time issues come into play while we wait for sleepy reviewers.
> > Having each file addressed in a separate patch also helps > > revertability and bisectability. Not such a big problem with the > > documentation patches, but still. > > There's nothing to revert or bisect, those changes aren't functional > changes.
Right, I did mention that.
> > Admittedly doing it this way *can* look a bit odd in *some* patch-sets > > when they hit the MLs - particularly clock it seems, where there > > hasn't even been a vague attempt to document any of the parameters in > > the kernel-doc headers - however the alternative would mean nothing > > would get done! > > Yeah, and even though properly documenting the functions would have been > the right way to fix those warnings, I didn't ask you to do that since I > was expecting it to be daunting.
There are a couple of schools of thought on function documentation. The conflicting one to yours is that Kernel-doc headers should only be used if they are part of an API and have an accompanying kernel-doc:: tag in Documentation. The functions touched here do not.
NB: Fortunately the functions we're discussing are all static or else `scripts/find-unused-docs.sh` would complain about them also.
Personally, I am in the middle. If authors have had a good go at documenting functions and their parameters, I'll make the effort to fix any doc-rot or oversights. However if, like here, no such effort has been made, they get demoted. Nothing stopping authors fixing them up properly and re-promoting them again though. Essentially I'm trying to avoid a situation where authors throw something together half-heatedly, safe in the knowledge that someone will come fix and beautify things for them.
> Surely we can meet half-way
I'm always happy to collaborate. What does half-way look like?
-- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |