[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <875zkrd7nq.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 11:59:37 +0300
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel-doc: rename the kernel-doc directive 'functions' to 'specific'
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019, Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com> wrote:
> The 'functions' directive is not only for functions, but also works for
> structs/unions. So the name is misleading. This patch renames it to
> 'specific', so now we have export/internal/specific directives to limit
> the functions/types to be included in documentation. Meanwhile we improved
> the warning message.
Agreed on "functions" being less than perfect. It directly exposes the
idiosyncrasies of scripts/kernel-doc. I'm not sure "specific" is any
better, though.
Perhaps "symbols" would be more self-explanatory. Or, actually make
"functions" only work on functions, and add a separate keyword for other
stuff. *shrug*
Seems like the patch is way too big. I'd probably add "symbols" (or
whatever) as a synonym for "functions" for starters, and convert
documents piecemeal, and finally drop the old one.
The scripts/kernel-doc change should be a patch of its own.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists