Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Sep 2022 11:53:38 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] overflow: Fix kern-doc markup for functions | From | Akira Yokosawa <> |
| |
Hi,
Somehow Kees added me in Cc:, so let me comment. :-)
On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 14:09:10 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 10:06:19PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 12:47:13PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >>> -/** check_add_overflow() - Calculate addition with overflow checking >>> +/** >>> + * check_add_overflow - Calculate addition with overflow checking >>> * >>> * @a: first addend >>> * @b: second addend >> >> Why did you remove the ()? And why didn't you delete the blank line? >> According to our documentation, the canonical form is: >> >> /** >> * function_name() - Brief description of function. >> * @arg1: Describe the first argument. >> * @arg2: Describe the second argument. >> * One can provide multiple line descriptions >> * for arguments.
Matthew, you call it the "canonical form", my take is more of a "template that is known to work".
>> >> I don't usually complain about people getting that wrong, but when >> people correct it to be wrong ...
I'd say "wrong" if "./scripts/kernel-doc -v -none include/linux/overflow.h" complained or the resulting reST doc didn't rendered properly, but that's not the case here.
> > Hunh, everywhere I'd looked didn't have the "()" (which seems > redundant). The blank line was entirely aesthetics for me. If it's > supposed to be without a blank, I can fix it up everwhere.
So, I think this is more of a territory of preference or consistency rather than that of correctness. Those extra blank lines can be confusing as most people expect it in front of description part.
get_maintainer.pl says Kees is the sole maintainer of overflow.h, so it's his call, I guess.
Thanks, Akira >
| |