Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation of kernel messages

[Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:37:29AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 17:06 +0200, holzheu wrote:
> > The operation of a Linux system sometimes requires to decode the
> > meaning of a specific kernel message, e.g. an error message of a
> > driver. Especially on our mainframe zSeries platform system
> > administrators want to have descriptions for Linux kernel messages.
> > They are used to that, because all other operating systems on that
> > platform like z/OS, z/VM or z/VSE have message catalogs with detailed
> > descriptions about the semantics of the messages.
> 
> I'm not sure we want to make Linux more like z/* in this regard. :)
> 
> The problem with your proposal is that every time a new message in the
> kernel is created or modified, you need somebody to go update that
> documentation.  It's going to get out-of-sync very fast if this isn't
> done, and you either need to convince and teach each and every kernel
> contributor to follow your lead, or have a team of highly trained code
> monkeys to watch git-commits and resubmit documentation for every diff
> that touches a printk. 

This is no more and no less the same situation that we have with
the kernel-doc documented functions/data in the kernel.

I like the concept that the description is kept close to the actual
usage, the tool support and that in general looks like ordinary
kernel-doc documentation.

And if people do not dare to update the kernel-doc documentation of
a function then maybe they should not send patches in first place..

If we then really want to have the important printk's documented
is another story.

	Sam