On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 04:04:55PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 04:01:26PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 03:34:40PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 02:25:15PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > + * Return: A struct drm_gem_cma_object * on success or an ERR_PTR()-encoded > > > > > > Same bikeshed about "Returns:\n" as with the panel kerneldoc patch. > > > > I've been following the style described in the kernel-doc nano-HOWTO, > > which says that: > > > > The return value, if any, should be described in a dedicated > > section named "Return". > > > > There are other things in that document that we don't follow in DRM, so > > I wonder if we should just consider it as guidelines rather than actual > > rules (they aren't enforced anyway) or perhaps make a pass over existing > > kerneldoc and convert it to the rules described in that document. > > > > That document is the only reference for the kerneldoc syntax (that I > > know of), so I had always thought that we should be following it. > > We've started out with all-uppercase RETURNS from userspace libdrm iirc. I > don't care really, but iirc the Returns: is the common one we use. Imo it > also reads better in English, but not native speaker here ;-) Alright, I'll go with the variant that you proposed for the sake of consistency. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpeZ3H2kFt65.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
