From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755648AbYE3PZy (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2008 11:25:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752057AbYE3PZq (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2008 11:25:46 -0400 Received: from xenotime.net ([66.160.160.81]:38366 "HELO xenotime.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751480AbYE3PZp (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2008 11:25:45 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 08:39:20 -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: <20080530083920.cc7a029f.rdunlap@xenotime.net> In-Reply-To: <20080530012537.87454a8d.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> <20080529203042.19f76f09.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <20080529225708.74f65654.pj@sgi.com> <20080529212746.2d9cae24.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <20080530012537.87454a8d.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 Fri, 30 May 2008 01:25:37 -0500 Paul Jackson wrote: > Randy wrote: > > Does that help? your understanding of kernel-doc or your decision? > > Well, I get the difference between E (exported) and I (non-exported) > now. And I see that one could prepare documents using SGML templates > that contained one, or the other of these, for any kernel source files > of interest. > > I'm stuck on the next step of this decision. > > Usually, when I am preparing documens, I know what document I am > preparing and have an idea who is in its audience. > > I have never seen or heard of a document using the "/**" kernel-doc > entries of kernel/cpuset.c, and I have no idea who actually has (in > the past or present, not just hypothetically) read such or why. > > So I'm kinda shootin in the dark here. > > So, mostly just to be consistent with my previous call, because I enjoy > being a stubborn retard, I continue to prefer that file static routines > in kernel/cpuset.c not have "/**" kernel-doc markers on their comments, > and I would still welcome a patch from Miao removing the ones already > there. Well, that's some reason for your decision. At least you aren't just being arbitrary. I agree with Alan, of course. I don't think that you have stated a Good reason for removing the kernel-doc on the static functions, but it is your call AFAICT. > Enough of this discussion, from me at least. --- ~Randy "He closes his eyes and drops the goggles. You can't get hurt by looking at a bitmap. Or can you?"