login
Login
/
Register
Search
Forums
News
Blogs
Features
Site
Home
»
Mailing list archives
»
linux-kernel
»
2008
»
April
»
11
Re: [DOC PATCH] semaphore documentation
view
thread
!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [
thread
] [
date
] [
author
]
Next message: [
thread
] [
date
] [
author
]
[view in full thread]
From:
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@...>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...>
Subject:
Re: [DOC PATCH] semaphore documentation
Date: Friday, April 11, 2008 - 4:27 pm
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:21:54 -0600 Matthew Wilcox wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 03:19:07PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:08:16 -0600 > > Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote: > > > It seems very strange to me to document the API with the implementation > > > rather than with the declaration. It's almost as if we expect people to > > > have to read the implementation to figure out how stuff works. > > > > That approach makes sense for C++. But for C, the code is .c-centric. > > I've never programmed in C++ ... I just expect to find API documentation > in header files. > > > That's particularly the case with the kernel, where we explicitly work to > > make the .c files the things which people look at, while not caring about > > the .h files. Look at how much we say "get that ifdef out of there and > > hide it in the header file". > > I see that as being "move the complexity around" and "get the interfaces > right", not "hide it in the header files where nobody ever looks". > > > > How about a note in semaphore.c that says "refer to semaphore.h for > > > usage information"? > > > > No, please document it in the C file, where people expect to find it. > > Fine, I've done it the other way round. > > Please review this doc-patch. Without comments, I'll commit it to the > semaphore git tree tomorrow.
Looks good to me. Thanks. --- ~Randy --
unsubscribe notice
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/
Previous message: [
thread
] [
date
] [
author
]
Next message: [
thread
] [
date
] [
author
]
Messages in current thread:
[DOC PATCH] semaphore documentation
, Matthew Wilcox
, (Fri Apr 11, 3:21 pm)
Re: [DOC PATCH] semaphore documentation
, Randy Dunlap
, (Fri Apr 11, 4:27 pm)
Re: [DOC PATCH] semaphore documentation
, Andrew Morton
, (Sat Apr 12, 1:09 am)
Re: [DOC PATCH] semaphore documentation
, Matthew Wilcox
, (Sat Apr 12, 10:12 am)
Re: [DOC PATCH] semaphore documentation
, David Woodhouse
, (Tue Apr 15, 4:24 am)
Re: [DOC PATCH] semaphore documentation
, Andrew Morton
, (Sat Apr 12, 3:27 pm)
Navigation
Create content
Mailing list archives
Recent posts
Popular discussions
linux-kernel
:
James Bottomley
Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel
Greg Kroah-Hartman
[PATCH 007/196] Chinese: add translation of stable_kernel_rules.txt
david
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Jan Engelhardt
intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23)
git
:
openbsd-misc
:
linux-netdev
:
Alexey Dobriyan
Re: [GIT]: Networking
Jarek Poplawski
[PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock().
Gerrit Renker
[PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side)
David Miller
Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs
Colocation donated by:
Who's online
There are currently
7 users
and
883 guests
online.
Online users
nsa310
racebin
straplessheart
Brdadleywalsh
getmorefollowe
shrimpscampire
kortingwebwink
Syndicate