linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/8] regulator: core: Fix incorrectly formatted kerneldoc "Return" sections

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]

Message-ID: <Zs3lt_0GGXAbsRPn@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 17:41:59 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] regulator: core: Fix incorrectly formatted kerneldoc
 "Return" sections

On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 05:55:43PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> kernel-doc complains about missing "Return" section for many documented
> functions in the regulator core. Many of them actually have descriptions
> about the return values, just not in the format kernel-doc wants.
> 
> Convert these to use the proper "Return:" section header. The existing
> descriptions have been reworded and moved around to fit the grammar and
> formatting.
> 
> In a few cases where the functions don't call even more functions
> and the error numbers are known, those are documented in detail.

...

> + * Return: pointer the &struct device_node corresponding to the regulator if found,

"pointer to the"
Same elsewhere.

> + *	   or %NULL if not found.

...

> + * Return: pointer to a &struct regulator corresponding to the regulator
> + *	   producer, or ERR_PTR() encoded negative error number.

(I'm not sure of definite vs. indefinite article, though. Perhaps you need to
consult with native speaker.)

...

> + *	   producer, or ERR_PTR() encoded negative error number.

Okay, maybe "negative error number" to be used everywhere (see previous email),
the main point is a) to make it clear that it's negative, and b) be consistent
with a term across the subsystem.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko