From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jani Nikula Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel-doc: rename the kernel-doc directive 'functions' to 'specific' Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 11:59:37 +0300 Message-ID: <875zkrd7nq.fsf@intel.com> References: <20191013055359.23312-1-changbin.du@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20191013055359.23312-1-changbin.du@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Changbin Du List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Sun, 13 Oct 2019, Changbin Du wrote: > The 'functions' directive is not only for functions, but also works for > structs/unions. So the name is misleading. This patch renames it to > 'specific', so now we have export/internal/specific directives to limit > the functions/types to be included in documentation. Meanwhile we improved > the warning message. Agreed on "functions" being less than perfect. It directly exposes the idiosyncrasies of scripts/kernel-doc. I'm not sure "specific" is any better, though. Perhaps "symbols" would be more self-explanatory. Or, actually make "functions" only work on functions, and add a separate keyword for other stuff. *shrug* Seems like the patch is way too big. I'd probably add "symbols" (or whatever) as a synonym for "functions" for starters, and convert documents piecemeal, and finally drop the old one. The scripts/kernel-doc change should be a patch of its own. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center