[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Must check what?
    On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 13:25:37 -0600 Matthew Wilcox wrote:

    > On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:02:42PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > I blame kernel-doc. It should have a slot for documenting the return value,
    > > but it doesn't, so nobody documents return values.

    Anyone can add what kernel-doc sees as a section. Just use:

    * Returns:
    * and describe the return values.

    > There's also the question about where the documentation should go. By
    > the function prototype in the header? That's the easy place for people
    > using the function to find it. By the code? That's the place where it
    > stands the most chance (about 10%) of somebody bothering to update it
    > when they change the code.

    Good questions. Jury is still out, I suppose.

    > > It should have a slot for documenting caller-provided locking requirements
    > > too. And for permissible calling-contexts. They're all part of the
    > > caller-provided environment, and these two tend to be a heck of a lot more
    > > subtle than the function's formal arguments.
    > Indeed. And reference count assumptions. It's almost like we want a
    > pre-condition assertion ...

    I want context documentation:
    * Context:
    * Interrupt or process or bh/softirq etc. (or Any)

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-10-04 21:51    [W:0.019 / U:8.560 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site