Am 07.02.19 um 16:30 schrieb Mike Rapoport:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 05:59:24AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
This seems to be an extremely common mistake to make (indeed, almost
3000 occurrences of 'Returns:' vs 5300 occurrences of 'Return:').
Add to that ~1000 '@return:'.
But scripts/kernel-doc does not really care:
} elsif ($newsection =~ m/^return?$/i) {
$newsection = $section_return;
} elsif ($newsection =~ m/^\@return$/) {
# special: @return is a section, not a param description
$newsection = $section_return;
}
Hi Mike, I only got this fragment of the thread, for me it is not absolutly
clear what the problem is .. I guess it is about the "Return" section in
kernel-doc comments, right?
The snippet from you above is the right point, it should work like it is
described here:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/doc-guide/kernel-doc.html#return-values
doesn't it? Or did you just want a checkpatch ...
Could we have a checkpatch warning for it?
Does checkpatch checks the kernel-doc parts at all?
No. I guess there are to many places to fail / to hard to put someone in
charge. E.g. if you do include a single kernel-doc comment from a source all
kernel-docs in the source will be parsed and may produce (error/warning)
essages. What we have, are some targets:
-linkcheckdocs
check for broken external links (will connect to external hosts)
- refcheckdocs
check for references to non-existing files under Documentation
-- Markus --
----- Forwarded message from Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -----
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 04:59:27PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
v3: Moved 'Returns:" comment after description.
Explained in the commit log why the function is defined static inline
v2: Added "Returns:" comment and removed probe_user_address()
The correct spelling is 'Return:', not 'Returns:':
Return values
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The return value, if any, should be described in a dedicated section
named ``Return``.
----- End forwarded message -----
