linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel-doc: rename the kernel-doc directive 'functions' to 'specific'

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

Message-ID: <20191015031504.GB32665@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 14 Oct 2019 20:15:04 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Tim.Bird@...y.com
Cc:     jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com, changbin.du@...il.com, corbet@....net,
        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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel-doc: rename the kernel-doc directive 'functions'
 to 'specific'

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 08:48:48PM +0000, Tim.Bird@...y.com wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jani Nikula on October 13, 2019 11:00 PM
> > 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.
> 
> I strongly agree with this.  'specific' IMHO, has no semantic value and
> I'd rather just leave the only-sometimes-wrong 'functions' than convert
> to something that obscures the meaning always.
> 
> > 
> > Perhaps "symbols" would be more self-explanatory. Or, actually make
> > "functions" only work on functions, and add a separate keyword for other
> > stuff. *shrug*
> My preference would be to use 'symbols'.  I tried to come up with something
> but 'symbols' is better than anything I came up with.

structures aren't symbols though ... How about 'identifier'?