From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754661AbYE3D5W (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2008 23:57:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752589AbYE3D5M (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2008 23:57:12 -0400 Received: from relay1.sgi.com ([192.48.171.29]:33464 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752346AbYE3D5M (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2008 23:57:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 22:57:08 -0500 From: Paul Jackson To: Randy Dunlap Cc: miaox@cn.fujitsu.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, menage@google.com Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/2] cpusets: restructure the function update_cpumask() and update_nodemask() Message-Id: <20080529225708.74f65654.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20080529203042.19f76f09.rdunlap@xenotime.net> References: <483E564A.5050807@cn.fujitsu.com> <20080529031656.cdc38001.pj@sgi.com> <483F5DAA.5060004@cn.fujitsu.com> <20080529205344.4ba1efdb.pj@sgi.com> <483F6367.1040701@cn.fujitsu.com> <20080529212211.0e794c81.pj@sgi.com> <20080529203042.19f76f09.rdunlap@xenotime.net> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.12.0; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Randy wrote: > For static functions, it's up to the maintainer/developer whether to do that > or not. But if the functions already have kernel-doc, there's no strong > reason to remove it. And these look good currently, so I see no > good reason to change them. Ok - thank-you for the explanation. I had this vague recollection that kernel-doc was just for non-static functions, so when I saw Miao put kernel-doc comments on a static routine, I looked around to see if that was normal. I didn't see mention of static functions in kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt, and in a brief survey, didn't happen to see any static functions with kernel-doc comments. However my survey was so brief I even missed five such functions in the file I maintain, kernel/cpuset.c. So from that I came to the (apparently flawed) conclusion that it didn't make sense to kernel-doc static functions, and so advised Miao. I don't quite see what purpose kernel-doc would have for static functions, and am still concerned that such would (mildly) clutter the presentation of the externally visible cpuset functions in which those who just use cpusets would be interested. It remains, of course, important to have good documentation of functions, static or not, but I would expect developers working inside the kernel/cpuset.c file to look for documentation of functions static to that file within the code and comments of that file, not in kernel-doc. However I am just the cpuset maintainer, not a kernel-doc expert. I remain inclined toward removing the kernel-doc markings on static functions in kernel/cpuset.c, but if you wish, Randy, to make a renewed appeal for me not to do so, I will happily honor that appeal. Life is good either way when we are discussing how to annotate documentation, rather than lamenting its absence. If you, Randy, felt inclined to explain the value of kernel-doc comments on file static functions in kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt, that might be valuable for the next person who travels this path. Thank-you. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.940.382.4214