Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:03:24 +0800
From:   Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>, Tim.Bird@sony.com,
        jani.nikula@linux.intel.com, changbin.du@gmail.com, corbet@lwn.net,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel-doc: rename the kernel-doc directive 'functions'
 to 'specific'
Message-ID: <20191016000322.7dnuwvxqtdbg7clq@mail.google.com>
References: <20191013055359.23312-1-changbin.du@gmail.com>
 <875zkrd7nq.fsf@intel.com>
 <ECADFF3FD767C149AD96A924E7EA6EAF977CAF09@USCULXMSG01.am.sony.com>
 <7e7557b5-469f-3e63-6254-53dab2d7234a@suse.de>
 <20191015115439.GE32665@bombadil.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191015115439.GE32665@bombadil.infradead.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 04:54:39AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:25:53AM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> > > My preference would be to use 'symbols'.  I tried to come up with something
> > > but 'symbols' is better than anything I came up with.
> > 
> > Maybe 'interfaces' or 'artifacts'. The term 'symbols' is just as
> > imprecise as 'functions'.
> 
> I suggested 'identifier' because that's the term used in the C spec (6.2.1):
> 
> : An identifier can denote an object; a function; a tag or a member
> : of a structure, union, or enumeration; a typedef name; a label name;
> : a macro name; or a macro parameter.
>
I also prefer this one now. I was looking for something like this. My original
idea is 'prototype', but that is only for function.

> We don't allow documenting all those things separately, but it does cover
> all the things we do allow to be individually documented.

-- 
Cheers,
Changbin Du