Re: [PATCH] Add kerneldoc for flush_scheduled_work()

Johannes Weiner
2009-08-13T08:47:55Z

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 09:25:14AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 10:13 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > > > And here I was thinking kerneldoc doesn't actually work
> > > > > like that, but perhaps Randy fixed it so the initial
> > > > > description can line-wrap?
> > >
> > > Yes, that's what I thought too. If kerneldoc has been fixed
> > > then the description line certainly should get wrapped.
> >
> > I really don't think it needs to be fixed: it's a feature not a
> > bug. It requires people writing kernel doc actually to think of
> > one line summaries.
>
> As long as the argument is that it's good to have limitations just
> because it has good effects as well (which the gist of your argument
> seems to be), i disagree.
>
> That's a very basic argument of freedom. Just consider the Gestapo
> which was also a 'feature' to keep criminals in check. Did you know
> that there were record low levels of petty criminality both in nazi
> Germany and during communism (and under just about any totalitarian
> regime)? Still nobody in their right mind is arguing that just due
> to that they are the right social model ...

Although I really like how you Godwin'd kerneldoc comments ;-), we do
have other features that are features because of their limiting effect
all over the place, don't we? The 80-columns code rule e.g. or our
limited set of allowed indenting characters.

> I think this DocBook limitation needs to be fixed, because there are
> legitimate cases where a function name got too long (for no fault of
> its own, but for properties of the name-space it is operating in),
> and we do not want a nanny state beat it into a single line.

Agreed, just as in the other rules, one should be able to bend this
one once in a while without technical consequences, i.e. without
kerneldoc breaking.