Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] kobject: Fix kernel-doc comment first line

[Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>]

On 5/2/19 6:40 PM, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 10:39:22AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
>> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 06:25:39PM +1000, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > Adding Jon to CC
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 09:38:23AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 12:31:40PM +1000, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
>>>>> kernel-doc comments have a prescribed format.  This includes parenthesis
>>>>> on the function name.  To be _particularly_ correct we should also
>>>>> capitalise the brief description and terminate it with a period.
>>>>
>>>> Why do think capitalisation and full stop is required for the function
>>>> description?
>>>>
>>>> Sure, the example in the current doc happen to use that, but I'm not
>>>> sure that's intended as a prescription.
>>>>
>>>> The old kernel-doc nano-HOWTO specifically did not use this:
>>>>
>>>> 	https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh?  I was basing this on Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst
>>>
>>> 	Function documentation
>>> 	----------------------
>>>
>>> 	The general format of a function and function-like macro kernel-doc comment is::
>>>
>>> 	  /**
>>> 	   * function_name() - Brief description of function.
>>> 	   * @arg1: Describe the first argument.
>>> 	   * @arg2: Describe the second argument.
>>> 	   *        One can provide multiple line descriptions
>>> 	   *        for arguments.
>>>
>>> I figured that was the canonical way to do kernel-doc function
>>> comments.  I have however refrained from capitalising and adding the
>>> period to argument strings to reduce code churn.  I figured if I'm
>>> touching the line to add parenthesis then I might as well make it
>>> perfect (if such a thing exists).
>>
>> I think you may have read too much into that example. Many of the
>> current function and parameter descriptions aren't even full sentences,
>> so sentence case and full stop doesn't really make any sense.
>>
>> Looks like we discussed this last fall as well:
> 
> Ha, this was funny.  By 'we' at first I thought you meant 'we the kernel
> community' but you actually meant we as in 'me and you'.  Clearly you
> failed to convince me last time :)
> 
>> 	https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180912093116.GC1089@localhost
> 
> I am totally aware this is close to code churn and any discussion is
> bikeshedding ... for me just because loads of places don't do this it
> still looks nicer to my eyes
> 
> /**
> * sfn() - Super awesome function.
> 
> than
> 
> /**
> */ sfn() - super awesome function
> 
> I most likely will keep doing these changes if I am touching the
> kernel-doc comments for other reasons and then drop the changes if the
> subsystem maintainer thinks its code churn.
> 
> I defiantly won't do theses changes in GNSS, GREYBUS, or USB SERIAL.
> 
> Oh, and I'm totally going to CC you know every time I flick one of these
> patches, prepare to get spammed :)

I have seen this discussion before also.  And sometimes it is not even
a discussion -- it's more of an edict.  To which I object/disagree.
The current (or past) comment style is perfectly fine IMO.
No caps needed.  No ending '.' needed.



-- 
~Randy