From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753248AbZHMOiG (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:38:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752253AbZHMOiF (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:38:05 -0400 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:38509 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751910AbZHMOiE (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:38:04 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add kerneldoc for flush_scheduled_work() From: James Bottomley To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Andy Whitcroft , Alan Stern , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Kernel development list , Randy Dunlap In-Reply-To: <20090813072514.GF12143@elte.hu> References: <1250094123.4000.43.camel@mulgrave.site> <20090813072514.GF12143@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:37:59 -0500 Message-Id: <1250174279.3901.21.camel@mulgrave.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 09:25 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 10:13 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > And here I was thinking kerneldoc doesn't actually work > > > > > like that, but perhaps Randy fixed it so the initial > > > > > description can line-wrap? > > > > > > Yes, that's what I thought too. If kerneldoc has been fixed > > > then the description line certainly should get wrapped. > > > > I really don't think it needs to be fixed: it's a feature not a > > bug. It requires people writing kernel doc actually to think of > > one line summaries. > > As long as the argument is that it's good to have limitations just > because it has good effects as well (which the gist of your argument > seems to be), i disagree. You're free to disagree > That's a very basic argument of freedom. Just consider the Gestapo > which was also a 'feature' to keep criminals in check. Did you know > that there were record low levels of petty criminality both in nazi > Germany and during communism (and under just about any totalitarian > regime)? Still nobody in their right mind is arguing that just due > to that they are the right social model ... > > I think this DocBook limitation needs to be fixed, because there are > legitimate cases where a function name got too long (for no fault of > its own, but for properties of the name-space it is operating in), > and we do not want a nanny state beat it into a single line. But your argument is bogus. We have tons of additional rules in Linux coding and we have a variety of enforcement mechanisms from BUILD_BUG_ON through to checkpatch.pl. This really doesn't have anything to do with "freedom". There are really two questions here 1. Is it a good rule that our oneline docbook function summaries should be, well, one line? 2. Is the enforcement mechanism for this rule adequate? I think 1. is reasonable. I think 2. needs work because you don't see the problem until make doc. James