Re: input: fix comments and blank lines in new ff code

["Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net>]

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 23:03:09 +0300 Anssi Hannula wrote:

> Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 22:07:16 +0300 Anssi Hannula wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Fix comments so that they conform to kernel-doc and add/remove some
> >>blank lines.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Anssi Hannula <anssi.hannula@gmail.com>
> > 
> > 
> > (attachments make review/comments more trying, so this is an
> > abbreviated reply)
> 
> Sorry, I'll try to use some other client when I send the fixed patch.
> 
> >  /**
> > - * Lock the mutex and check the device has not been deleted
> > + * input_ff_safe_lock - lock the mutex and check for the ff_device struct
> > + *
> > + * Returns 0 if device still present, 1 otherwise.
> >   */
> >  static inline int input_ff_safe_lock(struct input_dev *dev)
> >  {
> > 
> > Functions that are commented with kernel-doc need all of the parameters
> > documented also, like:
> > 
> >  * @dev: the input_dev (or better description)
> > 
> > There were a few places where you had these and deleted them.  :(
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 
> > (repeat for several functions...)
> > 
> 
> Ah, so if the comment is kernel-doc all parameters have to be always
> documented...

Right.

> I guess I can just remove the double ** for static functions, as I'm not
> sure it is necessary to document all the obvious parameters of those.
> 
> Or what do you think?

I think that kernel-doc is most important on non-static functions,
so it would be OK to remove the ** for the static ones.

---
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/