From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765553AbYDVP0x (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:26:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757034AbYDVP0K (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:26:10 -0400 Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com ([148.87.113.118]:18612 "EHLO rgminet01.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760519AbYDVP0F (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:26:05 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:25:19 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap To: Andrew Morton Cc: Ingo Molnar , jason.wessel@windriver.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kgdb: core Message-Id: <20080422082519.62adc7f1.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <20080421214636.617970c6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <200804181741.m3IHfTeC012089@hera.kernel.org> <20080418150930.476ea7aa.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080421141252.GR9554@elte.hu> <20080421214636.617970c6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Organization: Oracle Linux Eng. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.8.10; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:46:36 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote: > > 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. As Andrew has pointed out in various emails, it is convention to put kernel-doc near definitions (implementations), not near declarations (headers). [Boy, I hope I didn't get those reversed.] But it's just convention for the sake of consistency AFAIK. kernel-doc will read header files if that's what we tell it to do. > 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. Yes, duplication would be Bad. > 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 That's (using x86) fairly common also, esp. for functions that header files (inline functions and macros). > 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. kernel-doc output doesn't depend on build $ARCH. --- ~Randy