Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:35:02 +0000 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC 09/22] block, cfq: replace CFQ with the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler |
| |
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:22:10PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > +/** > > + * struct bfq_data - per device data structure. > > + * @queue: request queue for the managed device. > > + * @sched_data: root @bfq_sched_data for the device. > > + * @busy_queues: number of bfq_queues containing requests (including the > > + * queue in service, even if it is idling). > ...
> I'm personally not a big fan of documenting struct fields this way. > It's too easy to get them out of sync.
If it's something that gets included in a generated document then people will tell you pretty quickly if it gets out of sync these days, 0day notices and there's people sending fixes quite frequently. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |