On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 06:59:14 -0700, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 03:42:31PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: > > One more thing to consider is (not visible in this snipped patch as we > > see only a typedef) is that we already do have the version info for > > functions in the generated API xml. So ... do we even want to be adding > > them to the comments? > > > > Obvious pro is that it's visible right from the function comment when > > somebody is looking at the code itself. > > > > Obvious con is that there are now multiple places that have this info. > > I think it makes sense to document version information for all public > symbols in the same way. > > In the case of functions, the other source for this information (the > symbols file) can still be parsed and used to double-check that there > are no inconsistencies. Sure and it's actually done in this series, which is great. We just need a hack for 4 functions where the code was mistakenly added in a later version than under which the symbol is exported. (also done in this series, just needs to be fixed). And definitely it's more convenient when looking at the code itself than having to fire up the browser and look at the generated docs or in the API xml file.
