MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Better document some regset helper functions
In-Reply-To: David Howells's message of  Tuesday, 28 April 2009 00:30:21 +0100 <20090427233020.676.17406.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
References: <20090427233020.676.17406.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Emacs: impress your (remaining) friends and neighbors.
Message-Id: <20090428025926.599FEFC3C6@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 836
Lines: 18

I'm all for better comments and your text looks fine to me.

The reason I had not used kerneldoc comments for those helpers is that
these are the private helpers purely for the use of arch code implementing
user_regset accessor functions.  By contrast, the calls in linux/regset.h
that have kerneldoc comments are those that generic code (including future
modules, etc.) uses.  When generating DocBook or man pages, the regset.h
functions are grouped together and those that have kerneldoc today make
sense to have there, but IMHO these inline helpers for arch code do not.


Thanks,
Roland
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/