Re: kgdb: core

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:12:52 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> 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.

in that review discussion i pointed out much of the same arguments you 
did in this mail.

> > 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.

i'd rather just have it in the .h, to put KernelDoc into the position of 
getting fixed with a real testcase?

( _some_ comments in the arch file might be appropriate as well, but
  only if the arch implementation deviates from the common pattern in
  some way. )

It's not like this is a big issue, people writing KGDB arch support are 
not the typical readers of KernelDoc PDFs.

	Ingo