[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <613a2d06-30f1-4140-aa6c-16d5298d9909@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 13:25:18 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, akiyks@...il.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH locking/atomic 18/19] locking/atomic: Refrain from
generating duplicate fallback kernel-doc
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 10:01:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 12:53:46PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Do you have an alternative suggestion for generating the kernel-doc?
> > The current lack of it is problematic.
>
> I've never found a lack of kernel-doc to be a problem. And I'm very much
> against complicating the scripts to add it.
I am sure that you have not recently found the lack of kernel-doc for
the atomic operations to be a problem, given that you wrote many of
these functions.
OK, you mentioned concerns about documentation people nitpicking. This
can be dealt with. The added scripting is not that large or complex.
> Also, there's Documentation/atomic_t.txt
Yes, if you very carefully read that document end to end, correctly
interpreting it all, you will know what you need to. Of course, first
you have to find it. And then you must avoid any lapses while reading
it while under pressure. Not particularly friendly to someone trying
to chase a bug.
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists