linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] wifi: ath11k: document HAL_RX_BUF_RBM_SW4

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]

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 08:58:04 -0800
From: Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com>
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
CC: <ath11k@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: ath11k: document HAL_RX_BUF_RBM_SW4_BM

On 1/14/2024 7:17 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com> writes:
> 
>> Commit 7636c9a6e7d7 ("wifi: ath11k: Add multi TX ring support for WCN6750")
>> added HAL_RX_BUF_RBM_SW4_BM to enum hal_rx_buf_return_buf_manager. However,
>> as flagged by the kernel-doc script, the documentation was not updated:
>>
>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/hal.h:689: warning: Enum value 'HAL_RX_BUF_RBM_SW4_BM' not described in enum 'hal_rx_buf_return_buf_manager'
>>
>> So update the documentation. No functional changes, compile tested only.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com>
> 
> I'm not really a fan of kernel-doc in wireless drivers, it feels more
> unnecessary work. Should we remove the kernel-doc markings from ath11k
> altogether?

Are you not a fan of kernel-doc format specifically, or not a fan of
documentation at all?

I'm personally a fan of documentation since good documentation makes the
code more maintainable. Yes, there is a cost in creating and maintaining
the documentation, but this is hopefully offset by cost saving when new
developers are trying to understand and modify the code.

I'm also a fan of consistency. And since kernel-doc is the standard
format defined for the kernel, it is my personal preference to use that
format.

I'm curious what others think of the ath10/11/12k level and style of
documentation.

/jeff