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: <20191016000322.7dnuwvxqtdbg7clq@mail.google.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:03:24 +0800
From:   Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, Tim.Bird@...y.com,
        jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com, changbin.du@...il.com, corbet@....net,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel-doc: rename the kernel-doc directive 'functions'
 to 'specific'

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 04:54:39AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:25:53AM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> > > My preference would be to use 'symbols'.  I tried to come up with something
> > > but 'symbols' is better than anything I came up with.
> > 
> > Maybe 'interfaces' or 'artifacts'. The term 'symbols' is just as
> > imprecise as 'functions'.
> 
> I suggested 'identifier' because that's the term used in the C spec (6.2.1):
> 
> : An identifier can denote an object; a function; a tag or a member
> : of a structure, union, or enumeration; a typedef name; a label name;
> : a macro name; or a macro parameter.
>
I also prefer this one now. I was looking for something like this. My original
idea is 'prototype', but that is only for function.

> We don't allow documenting all those things separately, but it does cover
> all the things we do allow to be individually documented.

-- 
Cheers,
Changbin Du