From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on archive.lwn.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by archive.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC9E7D04D for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:31:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726510AbfBGPbG (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2019 10:31:06 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:35656 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726171AbfBGPbG (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2019 10:31:06 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x17FS4BI008644 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 10:31:05 -0500 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qgngp6518-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 10:31:05 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:31:03 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.198) by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:30:59 -0000 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x17FUxWQ9044244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:30:59 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E5252052; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:30:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from rapoport-lnx (unknown [9.148.8.84]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9523D52059; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:30:58 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 17:30:56 +0200 From: Mike Rapoport To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Joe Perches , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Return: vs Returns: References: <20190207135924.GV21860@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190207135924.GV21860@bombadil.infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19020715-4275-0000-0000-0000030CB0E9 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19020715-4276-0000-0000-0000381ABA24 Message-Id: <20190207153056.GB9120@rapoport-lnx> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-02-07_11:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902070118 Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 05:59:24AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > This seems to be an extremely common mistake to make (indeed, almost > 3000 occurrences of 'Returns:' vs 5300 occurrences of 'Return:'). Add to that ~1000 '@return:'. But scripts/kernel-doc does not really care: } elsif ($newsection =~ m/^return?$/i) { $newsection = $section_return; } elsif ($newsection =~ m/^\@return$/) { # special: @return is a section, not a param description $newsection = $section_return; } > Could we have a checkpatch warning for it? Does checkpatch checks the kernel-doc parts at all? > ----- Forwarded message from Matthew Wilcox ----- > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 04:59:27PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > v3: Moved 'Returns:" comment after description. > > Explained in the commit log why the function is defined static inline > > > > v2: Added "Returns:" comment and removed probe_user_address() > > The correct spelling is 'Return:', not 'Returns:': > > Return values > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > The return value, if any, should be described in a dedicated section > named ``Return``. > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.