Re: [RFC PATCH] fscache, 9p, afs, cifs, nfs: Deal with some warnings from W=1

[Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>]

David Howells wrote on Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 01:14:15PM +0100:
> Deal with some warnings generated from make W=1:
> 
>  (1) Add/remove/fix kerneldoc parameters descriptions.
> 
>  (2) afs_sillyrename() isn't an API functions, so remove the kerneldoc
>      annotation.
> 
>  (3) The fscache object CREATE_OBJECT work state isn't used, so remove it.
> 
>  (4) Move __add_fid() from between v9fs_fid_add() and its comment.
> 
>  (5) 9p's caches_show() doesn't really make sense as an API function, show
>      remove the kerneldoc annotation.  It's also not prefixed with 'v9fs_'.

Happy with the 9p changes:
Reviewed-by: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>

Having all of these in a single commit makes it difficult to deal but I
don't expect any conflict on my end, so happy to have it go in your
fscache tree.

Matthew Wilcox wrote on Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 01:37:46PM +0100:
> This is an example of a weird pattern in filesystems.  Several of
> them have kernel-doc for the implementation of various ->ops methods.
> I don't necessarily believe we should delete the comments (although is
> there any useful information in the above?), but I don't see the point
> in the comment being kernel-doc.

As far as I'm concerned this is just an "it's always been like this"
thing for me/9p, I wouldn't mind if it were all converted to normal
comments -- but now it's describing arguments by name having it as
kerneldoc has helped catch comments which didn't get updated when
function changed quite a few times in patches similar to this one so it
would only make sense if we remove obvious argument descriptions as well
in my opinion, and that's a bit of manual work.

-- 
Dominique