On Wed, 04 Apr 2018, Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > + Jani for Sphinx > > Quoting Rogovin, Kevin (2018-04-03 17:34:49) >> I am somewhat tempted to just drop this patch or add more documentation. The function pointers are used in the code common >> to the legacy way and LRC way of submitting batchbuffers to the GPU, so they should have somekind of contract to what they are >> supposed to do... but spelling out that contract might be a bit much... >> >> Opinions? > > No big feelings to either direction, you could add a documentation block > for the flow nearby. > > If the struct members are referred to from documentation blocks, how far > are we from generating warnings if a patch renames something that > becomes non-existent in .rst or documentation block? (this one for Jani) So first of all, the comments here are not kernel-doc comments, just regular comments. It's just free text. If you want them to be kernel-doc comments, included to some fancy generated documentation, you'll have to follow the guide at [1], wrap them in /** and */ and add the @member: tag at the start. Specifically, struct::member is not a thing. If you want to reference documented struct members in kernel-doc comments, you'll need to use &struct_name->member or &struct_name.member. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
