linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] kobject: Fix kernel-doc comment first line

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 7 May 2019 11:38:29 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        "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 Tue, May 07, 2019 at 09:00:35AM +1000, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 09:56:07AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:

> > This isn't about any particular subsystem, but more the tendency of
> > people to make up random rules and try to to force it on others. It's
> > churn, and also makes things like code forensics and backports harder
> > for no good reason.
> 
> Points noted.
> 
> > Both capitalisation styles are about as common for the function
> > description judging from a quick grep, but only 10% or so use a full
> > stop ('.'). And forcing the use of sentence case and full stop for
> > things like
> > 
> > 	/**
> > 	 * maar_init() - Initialise MAARs.
> > 
> > or
> > 
> > 	* @instr: Operational instruction.
> > 
> > would be not just ugly, but wrong (as these are not independent
> > clauses).
> 
> You are correct here.

Actually, I may have been wrong about the first example (imperative),
but the second still stands.

> Thanks for taking the time to flesh out your argument Johan, I am now in
> agreement with you :)

Good to hear! :)

Johan