[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z6oMi8rTeuwHHDt8@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 14:26:19 +0000
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
"Chester A. Unal" <chester.a.unal@...nc9.com>,
Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/3] net: phylink: provide
phylink_mac_implements_lpi()
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 02:05:58PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 03:20:54PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 10:36:44AM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/phylink.h b/include/linux/phylink.h
> > > index 898b00451bbf..0de78673172d 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/phylink.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/phylink.h
> > > @@ -737,6 +737,18 @@ static inline int phylink_get_link_timer_ns(phy_interface_t interface)
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > +/**
> > > + * phylink_mac_implements_lpi() - determine if MAC implements LPI ops
> > > + * @ops: phylink_mac_ops structure
> > > + *
> > > + * Returns true if the phylink MAC operations structure indicates that the
> > > + * LPI operations have been implemented, false otherwise.
> >
> > This is something that I only noticed for v3 because I wanted to leave a
> > review tag, so I first checked the status in patchwork, but there it says:
> >
> > include/linux/phylink.h:749: warning: No description found for return value of 'phylink_mac_implements_lpi'
> >
> > I am aware of this conversation from November where you raised the point
> > about tooling being able to accept the syntax without the colon as well:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/87v7wjffo6.fsf@trenco.lwn.net/
> >
> > but it looks like it didn't go anywhere, with Jon still preferring the
> > strict syntax for now, and no follow-up that I can see. So, the current
> > conventions are not these, and you haven't specifically said anywhere
> > that you are deliberately ignoring them.
>
> It was explained in this email as part of that thread:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/ZzjHH-L-ylLe0YhU@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
>
> The reason is that it goes against natural grammar. The only time that
> "Returns:" would make sense in grammar is when listing with e.g. a
> bulleted list, where the part before the colon doesn't have to be a
> complete sentence.
>
> This is why it's going to be an uphill battle - grammatically it is
> wrong, and thus it doesn't flow when thinking about documenting the
> return value.
>
> If we want to go to a bulleted list, then it will be natural to add
> the colon.
>
> I'm not going to explain to this level of detail in every email, and
> because of the grammatical nature of this, it's going to be very
> difficult to use a form that goes against proper grammar.
Also note that it follows the style already present in that file
with one exception (which is one of the few cases I remembered to use
the new format.)
--
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