Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] printk-rb: add a new printk ringbuffer implementation
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Wed Jun 19 2019 - 07:13:21 EST
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:30:26AM +0200, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2019-06-18, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> +/**
> >> + * DOC: memory barriers
> > What's up with that 'DOC' crap?
> The separate documentation in
> Documentation/core-api/printk-ringbuffer.rst references this so it
> automatically shows up in the kernel docs. An external reference
> requires the DOC keyword.
> Maybe the memory barrier descriptions do not belong in the kernel docs?
So i'm biased; I don't much care for Documentation/ -- code should be
readable and have sufficient comments; I hate rst and I think that
anything that detracts from reading code comments in an editor is pure
Personally, I've stopped using /** comments, live is better now.
> Sorry. I really have no feel about what (or how) exactly I should
> document the memory barriers. I think the above comments make sense when
> someone understands the details of the implementation. But perhaps it
> should describe things such that someone without knowledge of the
> implementation would understand what the memory barriers are for? That
> would significantly increase the amount of text as I would have to
> basically explain the implementation.
> I would appreciate it if you could point out a source file that
> documents its memory barriers the way you would like to see these memory
> barriers documented.
Yeah, I was going to read the implementation and make suggestions; just
haven't gotten there yet.