Re: [PATCH] overflow: Fix kern-doc markup for functions

[Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>]

Hi,

Somehow Kees added me in Cc:, so let me comment.  :-)

On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 14:09:10 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 10:06:19PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 12:47:13PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> -/** check_add_overflow() - Calculate addition with overflow checking
>>> +/**
>>> + * check_add_overflow - Calculate addition with overflow checking
>>>   *
>>>   * @a: first addend
>>>   * @b: second addend
>>
>> Why did you remove the ()?  And why didn't you delete the blank line?
>> According to our documentation, the canonical form 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.

Matthew, you call it the "canonical form", my take is more of a "template
that is known to work".

>>
>> I don't usually complain about people getting that wrong, but when
>> people correct it to be wrong ...

I'd say "wrong" if "./scripts/kernel-doc -v -none include/linux/overflow.h"
complained or the resulting reST doc didn't rendered properly, but that's
not the case here.

> 
> Hunh, everywhere I'd looked didn't have the "()" (which seems
> redundant). The blank line was entirely aesthetics for me. If it's
> supposed to be without a blank, I can fix it up everwhere.

So, I think this is more of a territory of preference or consistency
rather than that of correctness.  Those extra blank lines can be confusing
as most people expect it in front of description part.

get_maintainer.pl says Kees is the sole maintainer of overflow.h, so
it's his call, I guess.

        Thanks, Akira
>