[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8e237ab7-681b-dccf-792f-264e3f6fcd2d@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 18:46:16 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: "Tobin C. Harding" <tobin@...nel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] kobject: Fix kernel-doc comment first line
On 5/2/19 6:40 PM, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 10:39:22AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
>> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 06:25:39PM +1000, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > Adding Jon to CC
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 09:38:23AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 12:31:40PM +1000, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
>>>>> kernel-doc comments have a prescribed format. This includes parenthesis
>>>>> on the function name. To be _particularly_ correct we should also
>>>>> capitalise the brief description and terminate it with a period.
>>>>
>>>> Why do think capitalisation and full stop is required for the function
>>>> description?
>>>>
>>>> Sure, the example in the current doc happen to use that, but I'm not
>>>> sure that's intended as a prescription.
>>>>
>>>> The old kernel-doc nano-HOWTO specifically did not use this:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh? I was basing this on Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst
>>>
>>> Function documentation
>>> ----------------------
>>>
>>> The general format of a function and function-like macro kernel-doc comment is::
>>>
>>> /**
>>> * function_name() - Brief description of function.
>>> * @arg1: Describe the first argument.
>>> * @arg2: Describe the second argument.
>>> * One can provide multiple line descriptions
>>> * for arguments.
>>>
>>> I figured that was the canonical way to do kernel-doc function
>>> comments. I have however refrained from capitalising and adding the
>>> period to argument strings to reduce code churn. I figured if I'm
>>> touching the line to add parenthesis then I might as well make it
>>> perfect (if such a thing exists).
>>
>> I think you may have read too much into that example. Many of the
>> current function and parameter descriptions aren't even full sentences,
>> so sentence case and full stop doesn't really make any sense.
>>
>> Looks like we discussed this last fall as well:
>
> Ha, this was funny. By 'we' at first I thought you meant 'we the kernel
> community' but you actually meant we as in 'me and you'. Clearly you
> failed to convince me last time :)
>
>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180912093116.GC1089@localhost
>
> I am totally aware this is close to code churn and any discussion is
> bikeshedding ... for me just because loads of places don't do this it
> still looks nicer to my eyes
>
> /**
> * sfn() - Super awesome function.
>
> than
>
> /**
> */ sfn() - super awesome function
>
> I most likely will keep doing these changes if I am touching the
> kernel-doc comments for other reasons and then drop the changes if the
> subsystem maintainer thinks its code churn.
>
> I defiantly won't do theses changes in GNSS, GREYBUS, or USB SERIAL.
>
> Oh, and I'm totally going to CC you know every time I flick one of these
> patches, prepare to get spammed :)
I have seen this discussion before also. And sometimes it is not even
a discussion -- it's more of an edict. To which I object/disagree.
The current (or past) comment style is perfectly fine IMO.
No caps needed. No ending '.' needed.
--
~Randy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists