On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 18:18 +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > Hi Markus, > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 04:58:17PM +0100, Markus Heiser wrote: > > 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:'. [] > > > > 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 > > Right, but these should be checked explicitly and I doubt many people do it > before submitting patches. OTOH, checkpatch is something that's widely used > and if it had verified the kernel-doc parts, more comments would be > following the convention. It's not clear to me what you are asking checkpatch to do here. It may be reasonable for checkpatch to invoke kernel-doc on some portion of a patch, but I'm not sure how valuable it will be.
