Re: [PATCH RFC 09/22] block, cfq: replace CFQ with the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, Mark.

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:35:02AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:22:10PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
> > > +/**
> > > + * struct bfq_data - per device data structure.
> > > + * @queue: request queue for the managed device.
> > > + * @sched_data: root @bfq_sched_data for the device.
> > > + * @busy_queues: number of bfq_queues containing requests (including the
> > > + *		 queue in service, even if it is idling).
> > ...
> 
> > I'm personally not a big fan of documenting struct fields this way.
> > It's too easy to get them out of sync.
> 
> If it's something that gets included in a generated document then people
> will tell you pretty quickly if it gets out of sync these days, 0day
> notices and there's people sending fixes quite frequently.

Haven't generated docs turned out to be mostly pointless?  I think it
makes a lot more sense to write comments so that they're more
accessible in-line.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun