Re: [patch net-next v4 5/9] genetlink: introduce per-sock family private pointer storage

Andy Shevchenko
2023-11-28T20:07:03Z

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 11:59:05AM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:
> On 11/28/2023 8:18 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 01:30:51PM +0100, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> >> On 11/23/23 19:15, Jiri Pirko wrote:

...

> >>> + * Returns: valid pointer on success, otherwise NULL.
> >>
> >> since you are going to post next revision,
> >>
> >> kernel-doc requires "Return:" section (singular form)
> >> https://docs.kernel.org/doc-guide/kernel-doc.html#function-documentation
> >>
> >> for new code we should strive to fulfil the requirement
> >> (or piss-off someone powerful enough to change the requirement ;))
> >
> > Interestingly that the script accepts plural for a few keywords.
> > Is it documented somewhere as deprecated?
>
> I also checked the source:
>
> $git grep --count -h 'Returns:' | awk '{ sum += $1 } END { print sum }'
> 3646
> $git grep --count -h 'Return:' | awk '{ sum += $1 } END { print sum }'
> 10907
>
> So there is a big favor towards using 'Return:', but there are still
> about 1/3 as many uses of 'Returns:'.
>
> I dug into kernel-doc and it looks like it has accepted both "Return"
> and "Returns" since the first time that section headers were limited:
> f624adef3d0b ("kernel-doc: limit the "section header:" detection to a
> select few")
>
> I don't see any documentation on 'Returns;' being deprecated, but the
> documentation does only call out 'Return:'.

Then I would amend documentation followed by amending scripts, etc.
Before that it's unclear to me that contributor must use Return:. It
sounds like similar collision to 80 vs. 100 (former in documentation,
latter in the checkpatch).

Of course, there might be sunsystem rules, but again, has to be documented.
Right?

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko