Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 5 Nov 2020 16:20:59 +0100
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 56/56] scrpits: kernel-doc: validate kernel-doc
 markup with the actual names
Message-ID: <20201105162059.366b44bc@coco.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20201105150017.GL17076@casper.infradead.org>
References: <cover.1603469755.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
        <a21343a7012c87391c4850bf3151ebd82add8d1c.1603469755.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
        <20201105150017.GL17076@casper.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Em Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:00:17 +0000
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> escreveu:

> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 06:33:43PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Kernel-doc currently expects that the kernel-doc markup to come
> > just before the function/enum/struct/union/typedef prototype.
> > 
> > Yet, if it find things like:
> > 
> > 	/**
> > 	 * refcount_add - add a value to a refcount
> > 	 * @i: the value to add to the refcount
> > 	 * @r: the refcount
> > 	 */
> > 	static inline void __refcount_add(int i, refcount_t *r, int *oldp);
> > 	static inline void refcount_add(int i, refcount_t *r);
> > 
> > Kernel-doc will do the wrong thing:  
> 
> I wonder if we could change kernel-doc to be (optionally) less verbose.
> If we allowed people to write:
> 
> /**
>  * Add a value to a refcount.
>  * @i: The value to add to the refcount
>  * @r: The refcount
>  */
> 
> and had the kernel-doc script pick up the name of the following function
> automatically, would that be an improvement we could all agree on?

Matthew,

As patches are usually generated with -U3, the context lines are
not enough to show if a comment preceding a function is a kernel-doc
markup or a normal comment.

In practice, on some patches at this series, I found real issues
because something else was added between the kernel-doc markup 
and the documented function. 

So, for me, it sounds a bad idea to remove the function name, as
this can be used to detect such issues.

Thanks,
Mauro