Hi,
Somehow Kees added me in Cc:, so let me comment. :-)
On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 14:09:10 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 10:06:19PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 12:47:13PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> -/** check_add_overflow() - Calculate addition with overflow checking
>>> +/**
>>> + * check_add_overflow - Calculate addition with overflow checking
>>> *
>>> * @a: first addend
>>> * @b: second addend
>>
>> Why did you remove the ()? And why didn't you delete the blank line?
>> According to our documentation, the canonical form is:
>>
>> /**
>> * function_name() - Brief description of function.
>> * @arg1: Describe the first argument.
>> * @arg2: Describe the second argument.
>> * One can provide multiple line descriptions
>> * for arguments.
Matthew, you call it the "canonical form", my take is more of a "template
that is known to work".
>>
>> I don't usually complain about people getting that wrong, but when
>> people correct it to be wrong ...
I'd say "wrong" if "./scripts/kernel-doc -v -none include/linux/overflow.h"
complained or the resulting reST doc didn't rendered properly, but that's
not the case here.
>
> Hunh, everywhere I'd looked didn't have the "()" (which seems
> redundant). The blank line was entirely aesthetics for me. If it's
> supposed to be without a blank, I can fix it up everwhere.
So, I think this is more of a territory of preference or consistency
rather than that of correctness. Those extra blank lines can be confusing
as most people expect it in front of description part.
get_maintainer.pl says Kees is the sole maintainer of overflow.h, so
it's his call, I guess.
Thanks, Akira
>
