[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160217155721.GT3741@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:57:21 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Fabio Checconi <fchecconi@...il.com>,
Arianna Avanzini <avanzini.arianna@...il.com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ulf.hansson@...aro.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 09/22] block, cfq: replace CFQ with the BFQ-v0 I/O
scheduler
Hello, Mark.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:35:02AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:22:10PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > > +/**
> > > + * struct bfq_data - per device data structure.
> > > + * @queue: request queue for the managed device.
> > > + * @sched_data: root @bfq_sched_data for the device.
> > > + * @busy_queues: number of bfq_queues containing requests (including the
> > > + * queue in service, even if it is idling).
> > ...
>
> > I'm personally not a big fan of documenting struct fields this way.
> > It's too easy to get them out of sync.
>
> If it's something that gets included in a generated document then people
> will tell you pretty quickly if it gets out of sync these days, 0day
> notices and there's people sending fixes quite frequently.
Haven't generated docs turned out to be mostly pointless? I think it
makes a lot more sense to write comments so that they're more
accessible in-line.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists