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: <CAGXv+5Gv9Hkwdb9G65HHFfOkX=_LGm1xVTkQpiDDw64LkevVnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:01:52 +0800
From: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
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 10:42 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Ack.

> > + *      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.)

I think "a" makes more sense, because in the case of _regulator_get(),
the |struct regulator| consumer instances are allocated separately on
the fly for each call.

> ...
>
> > + *      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.

Ack.


Thanks
ChenYu