From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760391AbYE3GZs (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2008 02:25:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754908AbYE3GZl (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2008 02:25:41 -0400 Received: from relay1.sgi.com ([192.48.171.29]:58653 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754735AbYE3GZk (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2008 02:25:40 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 01:25:37 -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: <20080530012537.87454a8d.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20080529212746.2d9cae24.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> <20080529225708.74f65654.pj@sgi.com> <20080529212746.2d9cae24.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: > 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. Enough of this discussion, from me at least. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.940.382.4214