On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 08:48:48PM +0000, Tim.Bird@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > -----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. structures aren't symbols though ... How about 'identifier'?
