[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y7MqhtPMYI4e50dY@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2023 21:03:34 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: add kernel-doc comment for u64_to_user_ptr
On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 07:43:49PM +0100, Federico Vaga wrote:
> Add a kernel-doc comment in kernel.h to document the macro
> `u64_to_user_ptr`.
We refer functions as func(), so `u64_to_user_ptr` --> u64_to_user_ptr().
> As of today, this macro is mentioned in the documentation in
> 'ioctl.rst' and 'botching-up-ioctls.rst'
Missing period at the end.
...
> +/**
> + * u64_to_user_ptr - convert an unsigned 64bit number into a user pointer
64-bit
> + * @x: the number to convert
Isn't 'number' is a bit misleading here?
It decodes the user pointer, that is encoded into unsigned 64-bit value.
Unfortunately I am not a native speaker, I can't propose anything better.
It might be that the 'number' is quite good choice, dunno.
> + */
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists