Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:27:54 -0700 | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Subject | Re: [DOC PATCH] semaphore documentation |
| |
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:21:54 -0600 Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 03:19:07PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:08:16 -0600 > > Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote: > > > It seems very strange to me to document the API with the implementation > > > rather than with the declaration. It's almost as if we expect people to > > > have to read the implementation to figure out how stuff works. > > > > That approach makes sense for C++. But for C, the code is .c-centric. > > I've never programmed in C++ ... I just expect to find API documentation > in header files. > > > That's particularly the case with the kernel, where we explicitly work to > > make the .c files the things which people look at, while not caring about > > the .h files. Look at how much we say "get that ifdef out of there and > > hide it in the header file". > > I see that as being "move the complexity around" and "get the interfaces > right", not "hide it in the header files where nobody ever looks". > > > > How about a note in semaphore.c that says "refer to semaphore.h for > > > usage information"? > > > > No, please document it in the C file, where people expect to find it. > > Fine, I've done it the other way round. > > Please review this doc-patch. Without comments, I'll commit it to the > semaphore git tree tomorrow.
Looks good to me. Thanks.
--- ~Randy
| |