From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756072AbYDVErS (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:47:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751337AbYDVErH (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:47:07 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:38600 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751130AbYDVErH (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:47:07 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:46:36 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Ingo Molnar Cc: jason.wessel@windriver.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kgdb: core Message-Id: <20080421214636.617970c6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080421141252.GR9554@elte.hu> References: <200804181741.m3IHfTeC012089@hera.kernel.org> <20080418150930.476ea7aa.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080421141252.GR9554@elte.hu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.19; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:12:52 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > So please > > > > a) make this a kerneldoc comment and > > > > b) remove the kerneldoc at the definition site(s). > > > > (alternative: teach the kerneldoc system to go fishing in the various > > arch directories to find the appropriate documentation, but I don't > > know enough about kerneldoc to be able say anything about that). > > well there's lkml feedback ping-pong effect here. It was pointed out in > earlier kgdb review that it's an "error" to put kerneldoc into header > files. It is, normally. Nobody thought about this case. > I pointed out that it makes no sense to do otherwise but removed > the kerneldoc annotation to resolve the "objection". Duplicating the same stuff in multiple places is the larger sin. It sounds like the best compromise would be to kernel-doc the interface in the .h file and remove the duplicated comments from .c. Or perhaps we kernel-doc the interface in the x86 .c files and leave it at that - people should go there to find the docs. Problem is, this will presumably generate bad results if one builds the formal kerneldoc output for a different architecture. The kerneldoc system could of course fix this somehow, but I don't know what shape it would take nor how much work it would be.