lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 0/1] Compactly make code examples into literal blocks
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 11:11:06AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:50:22 -0700
> Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > Let me just check I understand Jani's proposal here. You want to change
> >
> > * Return: Number of pages, or negative errno on failure
> >
> > to
> >
> > * Return
> > * ~~~~~~
> > * Number of pages, or negative errno on failure
> >
> > If so, I oppose such an increase in verbosity and I think most others
> > would too. If not, please let me know what you're actually proposing ;-)
>
> I told you there would be resistance :)

Happy to help out!

> I think a reasonable case can be made for using the same documentation
> format throughout our docs, rather than inventing something special for
> kerneldoc comments. So I personally don't think the above is terrible,
> but as I already noted, I anticipate resistance.
>
> An alternative would be to make a little sphinx extension; then it would
> read more like:
>
> .. returns:: Number of pages, except when the moon is full
>
> ...which would still probably not be entirely popular.

I certainly see the value in consistency throughout our documentation.
But I don't think it's a given that the documentation of the return
value is necessarily its own section. I see kernel-doc as being more
about semantic markup and the rst files as being a presentation markup.

So I'm fine with Return:: introducing a list or Example:: introducing
a code section; these are special purpose keywords. I'm not a fan of
using raw rst in kernel-doc. Of course if we can make the kernel-doc
and rst languages the same for the same concepts, that's great.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-27 18:35    [W:0.086 / U:5.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site