Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/2] cpusets: restructure the function update_cpumask() and update_nodemask()

Randy Dunlap
2008-05-30T15:25:54Z

On Fri, 30 May 2008 01:25:37 -0500 Paul Jackson wrote:

> Randy wrote:
> > Does that help? your understanding of kernel-doc or your decision?
>
> Well, I get the difference between E (exported) and I (non-exported)
> now. And I see that one could prepare documents using SGML templates
> that contained one, or the other of these, for any kernel source files
> of interest.
>
> I'm stuck on the next step of this decision.
>
> Usually, when I am preparing documens, I know what document I am
> preparing and have an idea who is in its audience.
>
> I have never seen or heard of a document using the "/**" kernel-doc
> entries of kernel/cpuset.c, and I have no idea who actually has (in
> the past or present, not just hypothetically) read such or why.
>
> So I'm kinda shootin in the dark here.
>
> So, mostly just to be consistent with my previous call, because I enjoy
> being a stubborn retard, I continue to prefer that file static routines
> in kernel/cpuset.c not have "/**" kernel-doc markers on their comments,
> and I would still welcome a patch from Miao removing the ones already
> there.

Well, that's some reason for your decision. At least you aren't just being
arbitrary. I agree with Alan, of course. I don't think that you have stated
a Good reason for removing the kernel-doc on the static functions, but it is
your call AFAICT.

> Enough of this discussion, from me at least.

---
~Randy
"He closes his eyes and drops the goggles. You can't get hurt
by looking at a bitmap. Or can you?"