[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:0.063 / U:0.248 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site