Re: kgdb: core

[Andrew Morton]

> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:12:52 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > So please
> > 
> > a) make this a kerneldoc comment and
> > 
> > b) remove the kerneldoc at the definition site(s).
> > 
> > (alternative: teach the kerneldoc system to go fishing in the various 
> > arch directories to find the appropriate documentation, but I don't 
> > know enough about kerneldoc to be able say anything about that).
> 
> well there's lkml feedback ping-pong effect here. It was pointed out in 
> earlier kgdb review that it's an "error" to put kerneldoc into header 
> files.

It is, normally.  Nobody thought about this case.

> I pointed out that it makes no sense to do otherwise but removed 
> the kerneldoc annotation to resolve the "objection".

Duplicating the same stuff in multiple places is the larger sin.  It sounds
like the best compromise would be to kernel-doc the interface in the .h
file and remove the duplicated comments from .c.

Or perhaps we kernel-doc the interface in the x86 .c files and leave it at
that - people should go there to find the docs.  Problem is, this will
presumably generate bad results if one builds the formal kerneldoc output
for a different architecture.  The kerneldoc system could of course fix
this somehow, but I don't know what shape it would take nor how much work
it would be.
--
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/