Em Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:05:46 +0200 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 16:02:02 EET Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 13:39:27 EET Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > Hi Mauro, > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 05:53:56PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > > The V4L2_DEV_DEBUG_IOCTL macros actually define a bitmask, > > > > but without using Kernel's modern standards. Also, > > > > documentation looks akward. > > > > > > > > So, convert them into an enum with valid bits, adding > > > > the correspoinding kernel-doc documentation for it. > > > > > > The pattern of using bits for flags is a well established one and I > > > wouldn't deviate from that by requiring the use of the BIT() macro. There > > > are no benefits that I can see from here but the approach brings > > > additional > > > risks: misuse of the flags and mimicing the same risky pattern. > > > > > > I'd also like to echo Laurent's concern that code is being changed in odd > > > ways and not for itself, but due to deficiencies in documentation tools. > > > > > > I believe the tooling has to be improved to address this properly. That > > > only needs to done once, compared to changing all flag definitions to > > > enums. > > > > That's my main concern too. We really must not sacrifice code readability or > > writing ease in order to work around limitations of the documentation > > system. For this reason I'm strongly opposed to patches 2 and 5 in this > > series. > > And I forgot to mention patch 8/8. Let's drop those three and improve the > documentation system instead. Are you volunteering yourself to write the kernel-doc patches? :-) Thanks, Mauro
