Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:09:11 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [DOC PATCH] semaphore documentation |
| |
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:27:54 -0700 Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> wrote:
> 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.
Yup, most excellent.
btw, down() and friends should have might_sleep() checks in them, shouldn't they? They don't seem to be in there, nor in mainline lib/semaphore-sleepers.c. Confused.
| |