Re: [PATCH] x86/sgx: Fix typos and formatting in function comments

["Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>]

On Tue, 2025-11-04 at 20:13 +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> On 4. Nov 2025, at 00:47, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > It seems we don't have a consistent way of describing return values in the
> > k-doc comments in sgx/main.c.  E.g.,
> > 
> > /**
> > * sgx_unmark_page_reclaimable() - Remove a page from the reclaim list
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > * Return:
> > *   0 on success,
> > *   -EBUSY if the page is in the process of being reclaimed
> > */
> > 
> > 
> > /**
> > * sgx_alloc_epc_page() - Allocate an EPC page
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > * Return:
> > *   an EPC page,
> > *   -errno on error
> > */
> > 
> > Perhaps we should make them consistent in format.
> > 
> > But I think this can be done separately from fixing the typos.  Maybe you 
> > can split out the typo fixing as a separate patch, and have another patch to
> > fixing the return value description?
> 
> I used the style mostly found in main.c and ioctl.c - would that be the
> "correct" format for the others as well? Happy to submit a separate
> patch if it's worth it.

I found a link documenting that (please search "Return values"):

https://docs.kernel.org/doc-guide/kernel-doc.html

In short, the doc suggested to use a "ReST list", e.g.,:

	* Return:
	* * %0            - OK to runtime suspend the device
	* * %-EBUSY       - Device should not be runtime suspended

But I am not a fan of cleaning up all the existing SGX comments to it, since
this will just be a burden to maintainers I suppose.  And I bet there are
other places in the kernel not following this "ReST list", i.e., I view this
as a suggestion but not a requirement.

Another option is you can just change to follow the quoted two examples
above (e.g., sgx_unmark_page_reclaimable()) so that at least in sgx/main.c
they are consistent.

Or just leave the comment as is.

That's my 2cents, and in any way, I will be happy to review.