[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <152176e4-9200-d173-d427-e732241a6355@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 12:31:39 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/gup.c: Updating the documentation
On 4/27/20 12:26 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 00:23:50 +0530 Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> This patch is an attempt to update the documentation.
>>
>> * Adding / removing extra * based on type of function
>> static / global.
>
> I don't think so, unless this is a new kerneldoc convention?
It's not new, but we generally try harder to document exported or
non-private interfaces and not so hard on private interfaces.
>> --- a/mm/gup.c
>> +++ b/mm/gup.c
>> @@ -722,7 +722,7 @@ static struct page *follow_p4d_mask(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> return follow_pud_mask(vma, address, p4d, flags, ctx);
>> }
>>
>> -/**
>> +/*
>> * follow_page_mask - look up a page descriptor from a user-virtual address
>> * @vma: vm_area_struct mapping @address
>> * @address: virtual address to look up
>
> /** indicates that the comment is in kerneldoc form, not that it has
> static scope?
Right.
--
~Randy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists