linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] Reformat return value descriptions as ReST lists.

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:   Wed, 11 Mar 2020 17:49:44 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     peter@...eshed.quignogs.org.uk
Cc:     linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Reformat return value descriptions as ReST lists.

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 07:28:23PM +0000, peter@...eshed.quignogs.org.uk wrote:
> Added line breaks and blank lines to separate list items and escaped end-of-line
> colons.
> 
> This removes these warnings from doc build...
> 
> ./drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c:579: WARNING: Unexpected indentation.
> ./drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c:619: WARNING: Unexpected indentation.

I'm all in favour of removing warnings, but I think you've fixed this
the wrong way.

> @@ -572,12 +572,18 @@ static void sfp_upstream_clear(struct sfp_bus *bus)
>   * the sfp_bus structure, incrementing its reference count.  This must
>   * be put via sfp_bus_put() when done.
>   *
> - * Returns: on success, a pointer to the sfp_bus structure,
> + * Returns\:

This should be Return: (not Returns:) and marks a section header,
not the beginning of the list.  See the "Return values" section
in Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst

> + *
> + *          on success, a pointer to the sfp_bus structure,
>   *	    %NULL if no SFP is specified,
> + *
>   * 	    on failure, an error pointer value:
> + *
>   * 		corresponding to the errors detailed for
>   * 		fwnode_property_get_reference_args().
> + *
>   * 	        %-ENOMEM if we failed to allocate the bus.
> + *
>   *		an error from the upstream's connect_phy() method.

Seems to me this should use the " * * VALUE - Description" format
described in the document I mentioned above.