[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080421214636.617970c6.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:46:36 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: jason.wessel@...driver.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kgdb: core
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:12:52 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > So please
> >
> > a) make this a kerneldoc comment and
> >
> > b) remove the kerneldoc at the definition site(s).
> >
> > (alternative: teach the kerneldoc system to go fishing in the various
> > arch directories to find the appropriate documentation, but I don't
> > know enough about kerneldoc to be able say anything about that).
>
> well there's lkml feedback ping-pong effect here. It was pointed out in
> earlier kgdb review that it's an "error" to put kerneldoc into header
> files.
It is, normally. Nobody thought about this case.
> I pointed out that it makes no sense to do otherwise but removed
> the kerneldoc annotation to resolve the "objection".
Duplicating the same stuff in multiple places is the larger sin. It sounds
like the best compromise would be to kernel-doc the interface in the .h
file and remove the duplicated comments from .c.
Or perhaps we kernel-doc the interface in the x86 .c files and leave it at
that - people should go there to find the docs. Problem is, this will
presumably generate bad results if one builds the formal kerneldoc output
for a different architecture. The kerneldoc system could of course fix
this somehow, but I don't know what shape it would take nor how much work
it would be.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists