[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170512164122.GA17235@fury>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 09:41:22 -0700
From: Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/36] mutex, futex: adjust kernel-doc markups to
generate ReST
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:59:47AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> There are a few issues on some kernel-doc markups that was
> causing troubles with kernel-doc output on ReST format.
> Fix them.
>
> No functional changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
No objection. One question, rather than prefixing the bulleted list of return
codes with a "-" which has no ReST meaning I could find, should we use "*"
instead which would be converted to a bullet it formatted documentation?
> @@ -1259,9 +1259,9 @@ static int lock_pi_update_atomic(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 uval, u32 newval)
> * @set_waiters: force setting the FUTEX_WAITERS bit (1) or not (0)
> *
> * Return:
> - * 0 - ready to wait;
> - * 1 - acquired the lock;
> - * <0 - error
> + * - 0 - ready to wait;
> + * - 1 - acquired the lock;
> + * - <0 - error
> *
e.g.
* Return:
* * 0 - ready to wait
* * 1 - acquired the lock
* * <0 - error
I'm fine with either though, just curious if this would be an improvement, or if
we have an established policy (which I didn't find in the docs on docs...).
Acked-by: Darren Hart (VMware) <dvhart@...radead.org>
--
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists