From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1759059AbZFWWIA@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1759059AbZFWWIA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:08:00 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758824AbZFWWHv
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:07:51 -0400
Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:38866 "EHLO
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756152AbZFWWHu (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:07:50 -0400
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:07:28 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, avi@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
       ghaskins@novell.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, bcrl@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch] eventfd - revised interface and cleanups (2nd rev)
Message-Id: <20090623150728.7d77970b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0906231448100.17001@makko.or.mcafeemobile.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0906230936280.17001@makko.or.mcafeemobile.com>
	<alpine.DEB.1.10.0906231219450.17001@makko.or.mcafeemobile.com>
	<20090623131848.b876d42e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<alpine.DEB.1.10.0906231400010.17001@makko.or.mcafeemobile.com>
	<20090623142909.42776e75.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<alpine.DEB.1.10.0906231428460.17001@makko.or.mcafeemobile.com>
	<20090623144638.22ca61ea.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<alpine.DEB.1.10.0906231448100.17001@makko.or.mcafeemobile.com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-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: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:

> > > This becomes pretty painful when the function calls other functions, for 
> > > which just relays the error code.
> > > Should we be just documenting the error codes introduced by the function 
> > > code, and say that the function returns errors A, B, C plus all the ones 
> > > returned by the called functions X, Y, Z?
> > > If not, it becomes hell in maintaining the comments...
> > 
> > Well.  Don't worry about making rules.  Taste and common sense apply.  "Will
> > it be useful to readers if I explicitly document the return value".  If
> > "yes" then document away.  If "no" then don't.
> 
> Are you OK with the format in the patch below?

Looks great to me.

Obviously the cost of maintaining this level of detail is fairly high,
and the chances of bitrot are also high.  So I wouldn't be expecting
people to document things at this level in general.  But if you're
prepared to maintain this then good for you.