On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 12:37:53 -0600
Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'd like to propose that anyone adding __must_check markers in the
> future be forced to *WRITE SOME FUCKING DOCUMENTATION* about exactly
> what it is the caller is supposed to be checking.
>
> extern int __must_check bus_register(struct bus_type * bus);
>
I blame kernel-doc. It should have a slot for documenting the return value,
but it doesn't, so nobody documents return values.
It should have a slot for documenting caller-provided locking requirements
too. And for permissible calling-contexts. They're all part of the
caller-provided environment, and these two tend to be a heck of a lot more
subtle than the function's formal arguments.
> Why, thank you. Does it return 0 for success, or 1 on success? Does it
> return an errno?
yes, no, yes ;)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
