[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150801132210.2c0b84f1@lwn.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 13:22:10 +0200
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula <danilo.cesar@...labora.co.uk>
Cc: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/kernel-doc Allow struct arguments documentation
in struct body
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 18:06:45 -0300
Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula <danilo.cesar@...labora.co.uk> wrote:
> Describing arguments at top of a struct definition works fine
> for small/medium size structs, but it definitely doesn't work well
> for struct with a huge list of elements.
>
> Keeping the arguments list inside the struct body makes it easier
> to maintain the documentation.
Interesting approach. I think it could make sense, but I fear pushback
from a subset of maintainers refusing to accept this mode. I wonder what
it would take to get a consensus on allowing these in-struct comments?
I'm wondering if we need a kernel summit session on commenting
conventions, markdown-in-kerneldoc, etc? Maybe I'll stick a proposal out
there.
Thanks,
jon
--
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