Hi Mauro, On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 17:34:46 EET Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:05:46 +0200 Laurent Pinchart 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: > >>> 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? :-) I thought you were the expert in this field, given the number of documentation patches that you have merged in the kernel ? :-) -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
