[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZzjHH-L-ylLe0YhU@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 16:23:59 +0000
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
pabeni@...hat.com, pablo@...filter.org, richardcochran@...il.com,
johannes@...solutions.net, loic.poulain@...aro.org,
ryazanov.s.a@...il.com, dsahern@...nel.org, wintera@...ux.ibm.com,
hawk@...nel.org, ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org, jhs@...atatu.com,
jiri@...nulli.us, ecree.xilinx@...il.com,
przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: reformat kdoc return statements
On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 08:36:12AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> kernel-doc -Wall warns about missing Return: statement for non-void
> functions. We have a number of kdocs in our headers which are missing
> the colon, IOW they use
> * Return some value
> or
> * Returns some value
>
> Having the colon makes some sense, it should help kdoc parser avoid
> false positives. So add them. This is mostly done with a sed script,
> and removing the unnecessary cases (mostly the comments which aren't
> kdoc).
I wonder about this... I suspect it's going to be a constant battle to
ensure that docs use Return: or Returns: because it's not "natural"
when writing documentation.
Maybe the tooling should accept a sentence starting "Return(s?)" and
convert it to "Return(s):" in generated documentation?
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists