lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 01/11] firewire: Add function to get speed from opaque struct fw_request
On 15/02/2012 22:01, Stefan Richter wrote:
> On Feb 15 Chris Boot wrote:
>> On 15/02/2012 19:09, Stefan Richter wrote:
>>> On Feb 15 Chris Boot wrote:
>>>> --- a/drivers/firewire/core-transaction.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/firewire/core-transaction.c
>>>> @@ -820,6 +820,22 @@ void fw_send_response(struct fw_card *card,
>>>> }
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(fw_send_response);
>>>>
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * fw_get_request_speed() - Discover bus speed used for this request
>>>> + * @request: The struct fw_request from which to obtain the speed.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * In certain circumstances it's important to be able to obtain the speed at
>>>> + * which a request was made to an address handler, for example when
>>>> + * implementing an SBP-2 or SBP-3 target. This function inspects the response
>>>> + * object to obtain the speed, which is copied from the request packet in
>>>> + * allocate_request().
>>>> + */
>>>> +int fw_get_request_speed(struct fw_request *request)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return request->response.speed;
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(fw_get_request_speed);
>>>
>>> Uh oh, what have I done by asking for a comment? :-)
>>>
>>> Can you tell what's wrong with this API documentation?
>>
>> Better to have too much than too little? :-)
>>
>> Linux 3.4, now with added Enterprise.
>>
>> Shall I cut it down a bit?
>
> a) The implementation of the function should not be explained here;
> after all it is meant to be opaque to API users. Besides, if somebody
> changes the implementation he will for sure forget to change the comment.
>
> b) It is fairly self-evident at which occasions an API user would want
> to use this function. (Everytime when he needs to know that speed.)
>
> c) The function call argument does not really need to be explained
> either as soon as the purpose of the function has been made known.
>
> So in my first response where I already acked your patch I should have
> simply asked for
>
> /**
> * fw_get_request_speed() - returns speed at which the @request was received
> */
>
> to be added to your patch. :-)
>
> Patch review could be so easy for everyone involved if the reviewer knew
> how to express himself...

I guess it comes from me just trying too hard... Will fix for v3.

Cheers,
Chris

--
Chris Boot
bootc@bootc.net


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-16 10:37    [W:0.083 / U:4.712 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site