From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4D075FEE6; Thu, 5 Jun 2025 19:52:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749153159; cv=none; b=fLdnxRIPT+3dTXRlxFNhBKOtD1P1YwhmPyNZUMKkIOPXVDGdzWZnWxxxoWgz+1ihrWl2NQn3ZgrEfw/6JBDf+G4Z7+gl8g9utLi3gA0YiGA7ysZOynkgGPWSvKGXawcODeyKR7jQJ4SRAOog55xbNAKmf7FH+btXDnsLCo5KEA0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749153159; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NrA8+ELzWL+5QvlJ0VNSAx2hi+8qSkXlIoSXyHc5fBA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=kflgLTY4sPSXYuKNul+pyJcfFvgblwcFGJq9pGE2DMaZGp7U1JW1WlOyL6JH5whap2/Idsie2T8dqUgZdIlBQzkc1m1zyYrXWFT1LumXQ/C6hF6fIf7+RGSBZMBM5vmhONzuufbPoDCCzmLfbZLQhDnMUAdvCyP7AgN7lcOcnms= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=PWEUEkdX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="PWEUEkdX" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 0D55041ED3 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1749153157; bh=pkg6djgNhdNpf9TwFs43z0gZDGrP/br4agW+AXMjS7s=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=PWEUEkdXLeUaTq6hJlXYvocAdjrlZn/7q75T0Uw9geVRFlNtqtLDL1eNX5gaLCdso LTa+bmFN1n+YrqtvPSoHW/s+9enS9O2wzRYyxkHO5+meM09jne9OKZFFPDqqsMS+4w bFSyg//3eW5kCobDLdRmbE8po6eeD8mHSgh5ltiv7Q7nB36SpBDDqAB1F5N63dQ3Jp PH7O0zg48Cjp9j/HxGU20egzR+US+9kTHKiLO6m4EA+NHbuwlcHgFvZEjzwiw8UfiC 7Oh9WWorI8epQywWAtY/RqWEe1x0qylniDygzcSIULeGn7UwlcdH+VWVfMoHXbpR8f VuM7JzlQOE6pA== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:2da9::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D55041ED3; Thu, 5 Jun 2025 19:52:36 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Randy Dunlap , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Suren Baghdasaryan , Mauro Carvalho Chehab Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/kernel-doc: drop "_noprof" on function prototypes In-Reply-To: References: <20240326054149.2121-1-rdunlap@infradead.org> <875xhaf145.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2025 13:52:36 -0600 Message-ID: <871pryezjv.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Matthew Wilcox writes: > kernel-doc is our own format, so sure, we can add whatever marker > we want to it. I think it's not quite general enough because we have > situations like: > > static inline void foo(int x) > { > numa_foo(x, NUMA_NO_NODE); > }; > > /** > * foo - Frobnicate > * @x: How many > * @nid: Which node > */ > void numa_foo(int x, int node) > { .. } > > and now we're documenting a parameter that doesn't exist. The only > solution is to move the kdoc to the header file, which is annoying for > everyone. Or replicate the declaration in the C file and kdoc it there. In this case, though, is there a reason to not document foo() as a separate function? jon