> -----Original Message----- > From: Jani Nikula on October 13, 2019 11:00 PM > On Sun, 13 Oct 2019, Changbin Du <changbin.du@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The 'functions' directive is not only for functions, but also works for > > structs/unions. So the name is misleading. This patch renames it to > > 'specific', so now we have export/internal/specific directives to limit > > the functions/types to be included in documentation. Meanwhile we > improved > > the warning message. > > Agreed on "functions" being less than perfect. It directly exposes the > idiosyncrasies of scripts/kernel-doc. I'm not sure "specific" is any > better, though. I strongly agree with this. 'specific' IMHO, has no semantic value and I'd rather just leave the only-sometimes-wrong 'functions' than convert to something that obscures the meaning always. > > Perhaps "symbols" would be more self-explanatory. Or, actually make > "functions" only work on functions, and add a separate keyword for other > stuff. *shrug* My preference would be to use 'symbols'. I tried to come up with something but 'symbols' is better than anything I came up with. > > Seems like the patch is way too big. I'd probably add "symbols" (or > whatever) as a synonym for "functions" for starters, and convert > documents piecemeal, and finally drop the old one. > > The scripts/kernel-doc change should be a patch of its own. Agreed on these two points as well. Just adding my 2 cents. -- Tim
