From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on archive.lwn.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by archive.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7CF7D04D for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 17:31:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726401AbfBGRbY (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2019 12:31:24 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0112.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.112]:41167 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726319AbfBGRbY (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2019 12:31:24 -0500 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E326180CCF7B; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 17:31:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-HE-Tag: snail66_6342d95d3143d X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2438 Received: from XPS-9350.home (unknown [47.151.153.53]) (Authenticated sender: joe@perches.com) by omf19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 17:31:21 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <596652fd8f0a3637649167b47805f1c6ac848f25.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: Return: vs Returns: From: Joe Perches To: Mike Rapoport , Markus Heiser Cc: Matthew Wilcox , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 09:31:20 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20190207161852.GC8040@rapoport-lnx> References: <20190207135924.GV21860@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190207153056.GB9120@rapoport-lnx> <8cacba6c-32c1-f60b-dfb0-0c74ef09d53c@darmarit.de> <20190207161852.GC8040@rapoport-lnx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.1-1build1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 18:18 +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > Hi Markus, > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 04:58:17PM +0100, Markus Heiser wrote: > > Am 07.02.19 um 16:30 schrieb Mike Rapoport: > > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 05:59:24AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > This seems to be an extremely common mistake to make (indeed, almost > > > > 3000 occurrences of 'Returns:' vs 5300 occurrences of 'Return:'). > > > Add to that ~1000 '@return:'. [] > > > > Could we have a checkpatch warning for it? > > > > > > Does checkpatch checks the kernel-doc parts at all? > > > > No. I guess there are to many places to fail / to hard to put someone in > > charge. E.g. if you do include a single kernel-doc comment from a source all > > kernel-docs in the source will be parsed and may produce (error/warning) > > essages. What we have, are some targets: > > > > -linkcheckdocs > > check for broken external links (will connect to external hosts) > > > > - refcheckdocs > > check for references to non-existing files under Documentation > > Right, but these should be checked explicitly and I doubt many people do it > before submitting patches. OTOH, checkpatch is something that's widely used > and if it had verified the kernel-doc parts, more comments would be > following the convention. It's not clear to me what you are asking checkpatch to do here. It may be reasonable for checkpatch to invoke kernel-doc on some portion of a patch, but I'm not sure how valuable it will be.