[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190722162804.754943bc@lwn.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 16:28:04 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Stephen Kitt <steve@....org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Nitin
Gote <nitin.r.gote@...el.com>, jannh@...gle.com,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rasmus
Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Added warnings in favor of strscpy().
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:24:33 -0700
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > If the functions themselves are fully defined in the .h file, I'd just add
> > the kerneldoc there as well. That's how it's usually done, and you want
> > to keep the documentation and the prototypes together.
>
> In this case, it's a macro and yes, the kernel-doc could
> easily be set around the macro in the .h, but my desire
> is to keep all the string function kernel-doc output
> together so it should be added to lib/string.c
>
> Are you suggesting I move all the lib/string.c kernel-doc
> to include/linux/string.h ?
If you want the *output* together, just put the kernel-doc directives
together in the RST file that pulls it all in. Or am I missing something
here?
Thanks,
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
