Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 4 Oct 2006 12:50:47 -0700 | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Subject | Re: 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)
--- ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |