Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:57:21 -0500 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC 09/22] block, cfq: replace CFQ with the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler |
| |
Hello, Mark.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:35:02AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > 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.
Haven't generated docs turned out to be mostly pointless? I think it makes a lot more sense to write comments so that they're more accessible in-line.
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |