Re: Must check what?

[Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 13:25:37 -0600 Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:02:42PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I blame kernel-doc.  It should have a slot for documenting the return value,
> > but it doesn't, so nobody documents return values.

Anyone can add what kernel-doc sees as a section.  Just use:

 * Returns:
 * and describe the return values.

> There's also the question about where the documentation should go.  By
> the function prototype in the header?  That's the easy place for people
> using the function to find it.  By the code?  That's the place where it
> stands the most chance (about 10%) of somebody bothering to update it
> when they change the code.

Good questions.  Jury is still out, I suppose.

> > It should have a slot for documenting caller-provided locking requirements
> > too.  And for permissible calling-contexts.  They're all part of the
> > caller-provided environment, and these two tend to be a heck of a lot more
> > subtle than the function's formal arguments.
> 
> Indeed.  And reference count assumptions.  It's almost like we want a
> pre-condition assertion ...

I want context documentation:
 * Context:
 * Interrupt or process or bh/softirq etc. (or Any)


---
~Randy