From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:38110 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726946AbfJODPI (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Oct 2019 23:15:08 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 20:15:04 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel-doc: rename the kernel-doc directive 'functions' to 'specific' Message-ID: <20191015031504.GB32665@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20191013055359.23312-1-changbin.du@gmail.com> <875zkrd7nq.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fpga-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org To: Tim.Bird@sony.com Cc: jani.nikula@linux.intel.com, changbin.du@gmail.com, corbet@lwn.net, 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 On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 08:48:48PM +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jani Nikula on October 13, 2019 11:00 PM > > 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. > > I strongly agree with this. 'specific' IMHO, has no semantic value and > I'd rather just leave the only-sometimes-wrong 'functions' than convert > to something that obscures the meaning always. > > > > > Perhaps "symbols" would be more self-explanatory. Or, actually make > > "functions" only work on functions, and add a separate keyword for other > > stuff. *shrug* > My preference would be to use 'symbols'. I tried to come up with something > but 'symbols' is better than anything I came up with. structures aren't symbols though ... How about 'identifier'?