From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758951AbYDVIbH (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 04:31:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756754AbYDVIax (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 04:30:53 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:59267 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756745AbYDVIav (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 04:30:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:30:38 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andrew Morton Cc: jason.wessel@windriver.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kgdb: core Message-ID: <20080422083038.GA28970@elte.hu> References: <200804181741.m3IHfTeC012089@hera.kernel.org> <20080418150930.476ea7aa.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080421141252.GR9554@elte.hu> <20080421214636.617970c6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080421214636.617970c6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * 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. > > 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