netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 04/10] idpf: negotiate PTP capabilities and get PTP clock

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: <0aabd732-3ccd-4834-beb9-5a828c226b72@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:24:13 +0100
From: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	<andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Milena Olech
	<milena.olech@...el.com>, <karol.kolacinski@...el.com>,
	<richardcochran@...il.com>, Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
	Samuel Salin <Samuel.salin@...el.com>, Johannes Berg
	<johannes.berg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 04/10] idpf: negotiate PTP capabilities and get
 PTP clock

On 3/25/25 13:49, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 09:13:19 -0700 Tony Nguyen wrote:
>> +/**
>> + * idpf_ptp_read_src_clk_reg_direct - Read directly the main timer value
>> + * @adapter: Driver specific private structure
>> + * @sts: Optional parameter for holding a pair of system timestamps from
>> + *	 the system clock. Will be ignored when NULL is given.
>> + *
>> + * Return: the device clock time on success, -errno otherwise.
> 
> I don't see no -errno in this function.
> The whole kdoc looks like complete boilerplate, but I guess
> it's required of your internal coding style :(
we have mostly followed what was mandated, which is much more since
commit dd203fefd9c9 ("kbuild: enable kernel-doc -Wall for W=2")

Even if sometime our kdoc comments provide value, I do agree that it
is rather a boilerplate. We have noticed your comments that kdoc is not
really required, but this series started before that, and we are
somewhat skewed to play it safe and keep the comments :(

Perhaps for libie and libidpf (sorry, it was libeth...) kdoc would make
sense, but for regular drivers, "@adapter: the board priv structure"
gets boring really fast. Keeping kdocs also discourages splitting
functions and other refactors