linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scripts/kernel-doc: drop "

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: <871pryezjv.fsf@trenco.lwn.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2025 13:52:36 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
 <mchehab@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/kernel-doc: drop "_noprof" on function prototypes

Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> writes:

> kernel-doc is our own format, so sure, we can add whatever marker
> we want to it.  I think it's not quite general enough because we have
> situations like:
>
> static inline void foo(int x)
> {
> 	numa_foo(x, NUMA_NO_NODE);
> };
>
> /**
>  * foo - Frobnicate
>  * @x: How many
>  * @nid: Which node
>  */
> void numa_foo(int x, int node)
> { .. }
>
> and now we're documenting a parameter that doesn't exist.  The only
> solution is to move the kdoc to the header file, which is annoying for
> everyone.  Or replicate the declaration in the C file and kdoc it there.

In this case, though, is there a reason to not document foo() as a
separate function?

jon