Re: [PATCH 2/8] media: v4l2-ioctl.h: convert debug into an enum of bits

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

Hi Mauro,

On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 17:34:46 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:05:46 +0200 Laurent Pinchart escreveu:
> > On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 16:02:02 EET Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 13:39:27 EET Sakari Ailus wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 05:53:56PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >>>> The V4L2_DEV_DEBUG_IOCTL macros actually define a bitmask,
> >>>> but without using Kernel's modern standards. Also,
> >>>> documentation looks akward.
> >>>> 
> >>>> So, convert them into an enum with valid bits, adding
> >>>> the correspoinding kernel-doc documentation for it.
> >>> 
> >>> The pattern of using bits for flags is a well established one and I
> >>> wouldn't deviate from that by requiring the use of the BIT() macro.
> >>> There are no benefits that I can see from here but the approach brings
> >>> additional risks: misuse of the flags and mimicing the same risky
> >>> pattern.
> >>> 
> >>> I'd also like to echo Laurent's concern that code is being changed in
> >>> odd ways and not for itself, but due to deficiencies in documentation
> >>> tools.
> >>> 
> >>> I believe the tooling has to be improved to address this properly.
> >>> That only needs to done once, compared to changing all flag
> >>> definitions to enums.
> >> 
> >> That's my main concern too. We really must not sacrifice code
> >> readability or writing ease in order to work around limitations of the
> >> documentation system. For this reason I'm strongly opposed to patches 2
> >> and 5 in this series.
> > 
> > And I forgot to mention patch 8/8. Let's drop those three and improve the
> > documentation system instead.
> 
> Are you volunteering yourself to write the kernel-doc patches? :-)

I thought you were the expert in this field, given the number of documentation 
patches that you have merged in the kernel ? :-)

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart