From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D01B9C04A6B for ; Mon, 6 May 2019 23:01:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 916462087F for ; Mon, 6 May 2019 23:01:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tobin.cc header.i=@tobin.cc header.b="eecXp3dV"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="DxAdKNqb" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726399AbfEFXBO (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 May 2019 19:01:14 -0400 Received: from new4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.230]:44413 "EHLO new4-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726063AbfEFXBN (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 May 2019 19:01:13 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C22148C8; Mon, 6 May 2019 19:01:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 06 May 2019 19:01:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tobin.cc; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=fm3; bh=xM4jzc9dPTg4gnuuWc7wADR0BLb nKp4nVQ2UXDxHlno=; b=eecXp3dVsf21b/PePO+9dDTmHMKmNs/bczR0WgIq2VG oRcW0wnHuFcwqgTLkBMWIcA4vmbfkCFDXcwxugn2eUFF4J9d6Z+AlRlfdgcsQJnN t0oaRAkr8nUezQ9K9pwUg92YlLJT1o/oPm3G4C7ZxTv1xLefYcMgTOxGN8eGPa8K yGmHEkK468uOfWS4WI8RKJbdXoTuMb3JM840VQuykkGX+W3dnFi3WqHKh4ykadrP SXKgKwsZYWk27TuL7M08Umxghaz8zoLnR/YZgaOvcYdEhlvJQz0D/pzRFaTovEI9 hiM2n3i3QZflDkM4DucwObTdpYIxUCG09zyre/P0m+Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=xM4jzc 9dPTg4gnuuWc7wADR0BLbnKp4nVQ2UXDxHlno=; b=DxAdKNqbMrpd1c/MEb2Mzz nn25hafBJtjPs3+Tinc9xoNd1VYfIeBmB9EqTU3i2oQIko4Ok9RmxbNJvS+lX6N5 9ZW0HJHHacAKsuOb332WPdeRAz7p27Tm/4TQhHst0B3dMVcmv2AdpPIY6UB2Egs0 qQEfJVojB3ilByqTYIG/pIBeA652uTM5FCZnj3dwHVQTqQMOnVvCmxZHG3oTGVmb rHXC6mfC7J09GnBYZX9OhpbYD5wrCqqHZtOMpoYpCaZY/QDz4RF0dCFCDFvjplYI iAR3XcMFsQaqJanKkxogOUYbE8WacNkjacmAQZupxY8itmmTIpSL9si2V5nKXJFw == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrjeelgddukecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenfg hrlhcuvffnffculdduhedmnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjofgfsehttdertdfo redvnecuhfhrohhmpedfvfhosghinhcuvedrucfjrghrughinhhgfdcuoehmvgesthhosg hinhdrtggtqeenucffohhmrghinhepkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgnecukfhppeduvddurdeg gedrudelkedrudegudenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhgvsehtohgsihhnrd gttgenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (ppp121-44-198-141.bras1.syd2.internode.on.net [121.44.198.141]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CD8FF1037C; Mon, 6 May 2019 19:01:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 09:00:35 +1000 From: "Tobin C. Harding" To: Johan Hovold Cc: "Tobin C. Harding" , Josh Poimboeuf , Jiri Kosina , Miroslav Benes , Petr Mladek , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Joe Lawrence , Jonathan Corbet , live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] kobject: Fix kernel-doc comment first line Message-ID: <20190506230035.GA29554@eros.localdomain> References: <20190502023142.20139-1-tobin@kernel.org> <20190502023142.20139-4-tobin@kernel.org> <20190502073823.GQ26546@localhost> <20190502082539.GB18363@eros.localdomain> <20190502083922.GR26546@localhost> <20190503014015.GC7416@eros.localdomain> <20190503075607.GC26546@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190503075607.GC26546@localhost> X-Mailer: Mutt 1.11.4 (2019-03-13) User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 09:56:07AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 11:40:15AM +1000, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > > On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 10:39:22AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 06:25:39PM +1000, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > Adding Jon to CC > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 09:38:23AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > > > On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 12:31:40PM +1000, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > > > > > > kernel-doc comments have a prescribed format. This includes parenthesis > > > > > > on the function name. To be _particularly_ correct we should also > > > > > > capitalise the brief description and terminate it with a period. > > > > > > > > > > Why do think capitalisation and full stop is required for the function > > > > > description? > > > > > > > > > > Sure, the example in the current doc happen to use that, but I'm not > > > > > sure that's intended as a prescription. > > > > > > > > > > The old kernel-doc nano-HOWTO specifically did not use this: > > > > > > > > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh? I was basing this on Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst > > > > > > > > Function documentation > > > > ---------------------- > > > > > > > > The general format of a function and function-like macro kernel-doc comment is:: > > > > > > > > /** > > > > * function_name() - Brief description of function. > > > > * @arg1: Describe the first argument. > > > > * @arg2: Describe the second argument. > > > > * One can provide multiple line descriptions > > > > * for arguments. > > > > > > > > I figured that was the canonical way to do kernel-doc function > > > > comments. I have however refrained from capitalising and adding the > > > > period to argument strings to reduce code churn. I figured if I'm > > > > touching the line to add parenthesis then I might as well make it > > > > perfect (if such a thing exists). > > > > > > I think you may have read too much into that example. Many of the > > > current function and parameter descriptions aren't even full sentences, > > > so sentence case and full stop doesn't really make any sense. > > > > > > Looks like we discussed this last fall as well: > > > > Ha, this was funny. By 'we' at first I thought you meant 'we the kernel > > community' but you actually meant we as in 'me and you'. Clearly you > > failed to convince me last time :) > > > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180912093116.GC1089@localhost > > > > I am totally aware this is close to code churn and any discussion is > > bikeshedding ... for me just because loads of places don't do this it > > still looks nicer to my eyes > > > > /** > > * sfn() - Super awesome function. > > > > than > > > > /** > > */ sfn() - super awesome function > > > > I most likely will keep doing these changes if I am touching the > > kernel-doc comments for other reasons and then drop the changes if the > > subsystem maintainer thinks its code churn. > > > > I defiantly won't do theses changes in GNSS, GREYBUS, or USB SERIAL. > > This isn't about any particular subsystem, but more the tendency of > people to make up random rules and try to to force it on others. It's > churn, and also makes things like code forensics and backports harder > for no good reason. Points noted. > Both capitalisation styles are about as common for the function > description judging from a quick grep, but only 10% or so use a full > stop ('.'). And forcing the use of sentence case and full stop for > things like > > /** > * maar_init() - Initialise MAARs. > > or > > * @instr: Operational instruction. > > would be not just ugly, but wrong (as these are not independent > clauses). You are correct here. Thanks for taking the time to flesh out your argument Johan, I am now in agreement with you :) Cheers, Tobin.