netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/1] Reformat return value descriptions as ReST lists.

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: <20200311203817.GT25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:38:18 +0000
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     peter@...eshed.quignogs.org.uk
Cc:     linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Reformat return value descriptions as ReST lists.

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 07:28:23PM +0000, peter@...eshed.quignogs.org.uk wrote:
> From: Peter Lister <peter@...eshed.quignogs.org.uk>
> 
> Added line breaks and blank lines to separate list items and escaped end-of-line
> colons.
> 
> This removes these warnings from doc build...
> 
> ./drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c:579: WARNING: Unexpected indentation.
> ./drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c:619: WARNING: Unexpected indentation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Lister <peter@...eshed.quignogs.org.uk>
> ---
>  drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c b/drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c
> index d949ea7b4f8c..df1c66df830f 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c
> @@ -572,12 +572,18 @@ static void sfp_upstream_clear(struct sfp_bus *bus)
>   * the sfp_bus structure, incrementing its reference count.  This must
>   * be put via sfp_bus_put() when done.
>   *
> - * Returns: on success, a pointer to the sfp_bus structure,
> + * Returns\:
> + *
> + *          on success, a pointer to the sfp_bus structure,
>   *	    %NULL if no SFP is specified,
> + *
>   * 	    on failure, an error pointer value:
> + *
>   * 		corresponding to the errors detailed for
>   * 		fwnode_property_get_reference_args().
> + *
>   * 	        %-ENOMEM if we failed to allocate the bus.
> + *
>   *		an error from the upstream's connect_phy() method.

Is this really necessary?  This seems to be rather OTT, and makes the
comment way too big IMHO.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 10.2Mbps down 587kbps up