[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] eventfd - revised interface and cleanups (2nd rev)
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Davide Libenzi <> wrote:

> > > This becomes pretty painful when the function calls other functions, for
> > > which just relays the error code.
> > > Should we be just documenting the error codes introduced by the function
> > > code, and say that the function returns errors A, B, C plus all the ones
> > > returned by the called functions X, Y, Z?
> > > If not, it becomes hell in maintaining the comments...
> >
> > Well. Don't worry about making rules. Taste and common sense apply. "Will
> > it be useful to readers if I explicitly document the return value". If
> > "yes" then document away. If "no" then don't.
> Are you OK with the format in the patch below?

Looks great to me.

Obviously the cost of maintaining this level of detail is fairly high,
and the chances of bitrot are also high. So I wouldn't be expecting
people to document things at this level in general. But if you're
prepared to maintain this then good for you.

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-24 00:11    [W:0.042 / U:0.664 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site