From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch] eventfd - revised interface and cleanups (2nd rev) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:07:28 -0700 Message-ID: <20090623150728.7d77970b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20090623131848.b876d42e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090623142909.42776e75.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090623144638.22ca61ea.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, avi@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, ghaskins@novell.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, bcrl@kvack.org To: Davide Libenzi Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:38866 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756152AbZFWWHu (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:07:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Davide Libenzi wrote: > > > This becomes pretty painful when the function calls other functions, for > > > which just relays the error code. > > > Should we be just documenting the error codes introduced by the function > > > code, and say that the function returns errors A, B, C plus all the ones > > > returned by the called functions X, Y, Z? > > > If not, it becomes hell in maintaining the comments... > > > > Well. Don't worry about making rules. Taste and common sense apply. "Will > > it be useful to readers if I explicitly document the return value". If > > "yes" then document away. If "no" then don't. > > Are you OK with the format in the patch below? Looks great to me. Obviously the cost of maintaining this level of detail is fairly high, and the chances of bitrot are also high. So I wouldn't be expecting people to document things at this level in general. But if you're prepared to maintain this then good for you.