Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] gpiolib: Update the kernel documentation - add Return sections

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 4:06 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 04:01:43PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 2:52 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 02:12:51AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > $ scripts/kernel-doc -v -none -Wall drivers/gpio/gpiolib* 2>&1 | grep -w warning | wc -l
> > > > 67
> > > >
> > > > Fix these by adding Return sections. While at it, make sure all of
> > > > Return sections use the same style.
> > >
> > > Since there shouldn't be hard dependency to the first one, can you consider
> > > applying this one, so it unblocks me?
> >
> > I'm not sure what the resolution is for % and HTML <font> tags in the end?
>
> Most of the constants are without %, so less churn now is to drop %.
> If you think otherwise, please, fix it and I will rebase my patches later.
>

I'm not sure I get the logic of it. If the kernel-wide standard is to
use %, then we should work towards using it across the GPIO code even
if we do it a few lines at a time instead of going backwards just for
consistency in drivers/gpio/, no? We don't need to fix everything now
but if you're touching this code, then I'd go with %.

Also: what about the s/error-code/error code/g issue? While we should
always say "active-low", I think error code looks better as two words.

Bart





[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux