Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] firewire: Add function to get speed from opaquestruct fw_request

[Chris Boot]

On 15/02/2012 22:01, Stefan Richter wrote:
> On Feb 15 Chris Boot wrote:
> > On 15/02/2012 19:09, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > > On Feb 15 Chris Boot wrote:
> > > > --- a/drivers/firewire/core-transaction.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/firewire/core-transaction.c
> > > > @@ -820,6 +820,22 @@ void fw_send_response(struct fw_card *card,
> > > >    }
> > > >    EXPORT_SYMBOL(fw_send_response);
> > > >
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * fw_get_request_speed() - Discover bus speed used for this request
> > > > + * @request:	The struct fw_request from which to obtain the speed.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * In certain circumstances it's important to be able to obtain the speed at
> > > > + * which a request was made to an address handler, for example when
> > > > + * implementing an SBP-2 or SBP-3 target. This function inspects the response
> > > > + * object to obtain the speed, which is copied from the request packet in
> > > > + * allocate_request().
> > > > + */
> > > > +int fw_get_request_speed(struct fw_request *request)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	return request->response.speed;
> > > > +}
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(fw_get_request_speed);
> > >
> > > Uh oh, what have I done by asking for a comment? :-)
> > >
> > > Can you tell what's wrong with this API documentation?
> >
> > Better to have too much than too little? :-)
> >
> > Linux 3.4, now with added Enterprise.
> >
> > Shall I cut it down a bit?
>
> a)  The implementation of the function should not be explained here;
> after all it is meant to be opaque to API users.  Besides, if somebody
> changes the implementation he will for sure forget to change the comment.
>
> b)  It is fairly self-evident at which occasions an API user would want
> to use this function.  (Everytime when he needs to know that speed.)
>
> c)  The function call argument does not really need to be explained
> either as soon as the purpose of the function has been made known.
>
> So in my first response where I already acked your patch I should have
> simply asked for
>
> /**
>   * fw_get_request_speed() - returns speed at which the @request was received
>   */
>
> to be added to your patch.  :-)
>
> Patch review could be so easy for everyone involved if the reviewer knew
> how to express himself...

I guess it comes from me just trying too hard... Will fix for v3.

Cheers,
Chris

--
Chris Boot
bootc@xxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/