[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1606010841270.3629@nanos>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 08:43:26 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: David Kershner <david.kershner@...sys.com>
cc: corbet@....net, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, erik.arfvidson@...sys.com,
timothy.sell@...sys.com, hofrat@...dl.org, dzickus@...hat.com,
jes.sorensen@...hat.com, alexander.curtin@...sys.com,
janani.rvchndrn@...il.com, sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com,
prarit@...hat.com, david.binder@...sys.com, nhorman@...hat.com,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
sparmaintainer@...sys.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 20/27] staging: unisys: visorbus: make visorchannel
function descriptions more kerneldoc-like
On Tue, 31 May 2016, David Kershner wrote:
> From: David Binder <david.binder@...sys.com>
>
> Per audit feedback from Thomas Gleixner, function descriptions in
> visorchannel.c now utilize a more kerneldoc-like formatting. The affected
> comments do not implement other kerneldoc requirements.
That was not my feedback. If you start a comment with '/**' then it should be
a kernel-doc function/struct documentation. If not then it starts with '/*'.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists