From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753929AbYE3DRT (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2008 23:17:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752138AbYE3DRD (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2008 23:17:03 -0400 Received: from xenotime.net ([66.160.160.81]:59457 "HELO xenotime.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752104AbYE3DRB (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2008 23:17:01 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 20:30:42 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap To: Paul Jackson Cc: miaox@cn.fujitsu.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, menage@google.com Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/2] cpusets: restructure the function update_cpumask() and update_nodemask() Message-Id: <20080529203042.19f76f09.rdunlap@xenotime.net> In-Reply-To: <20080529212211.0e794c81.pj@sgi.com> References: <483E564A.5050807@cn.fujitsu.com> <20080529031656.cdc38001.pj@sgi.com> <483F5DAA.5060004@cn.fujitsu.com> <20080529205344.4ba1efdb.pj@sgi.com> <483F6367.1040701@cn.fujitsu.com> <20080529212211.0e794c81.pj@sgi.com> Organization: YPO4 X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.0; x86_64-unknown-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 Thu, 29 May 2008 21:22:11 -0500 Paul Jackson wrote: > Miao wrote: > > I check kernel/cpuset.c and find many static functions with "/**" comment. > > So I want to remove the special commenting convention for them. > > Right you are. Offhand, in kernel/cpuset.c, I see: > > static int cpuset_test_cpumask(struct task_struct *tsk, > static void cpuset_change_cpumask(struct task_struct *tsk, > static int update_cpumask(struct cpuset *cs, char *buf) > static void cpuset_do_move_task(struct task_struct *tsk, > static void move_member_tasks_to_cpuset(struct cpuset *from, struct cpuset *to) > > all having "/**" header comments. I would be glad to Ack a patch > from you to fix such comments. Thank-you. Uh.. We strongly want non-static functions to be documented via kernel-doc. For static functions, it's up to the maintainer/developer whether to do that or not. But if the functions already have kernel-doc, there's no strong reason to remove it. And these look good currently, so I see no good reason to change them. --- ~Randy "He closes his eyes and drops the goggles. You can't get hurt by looking at a bitmap. Or can you?"