| Message ID | 1449564561-3896-1-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hello Daniel, Just some typo comments below. On 09:49 AM - Dec 08 2015, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Every time I type or review docs this seems a bit different. Try to > document the common style so we can try to unify at least new docs. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com> > --- > Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl b/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl > index 86e5b12a49ba..5698c93dae8b 100644 > --- a/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl > +++ b/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl > @@ -124,6 +124,43 @@ > <para> > [Insert diagram of typical DRM stack here] > </para> > + <sect1> > + <title>Style Guidelines</title> > + <para> > + For consistency these documentations use American English. Abbreviations > + are written as all-uppercase, for example: DRM, KMS, IOCTL, CRTC, and so > + on. To aid in reading documentations make full use of the markup > + characters kerneldoc provides: @parameter for function paramters, @member paramters -> parameters > + for structure members, &structure to refernce structures and refernce -> reference > + function() for functions. These all get automatically hyperlinked if > + kerneldoc for the referencec objects exists When referencing entries in referencec -> referenced, missing '.' after exists > + function vtables please use -<vfunc(). Note that with kerneldoc does Isn't "with" too much here? "Note that kerneldoc does not […]"? > + not support referncing struct members directly, so please add a reference referncing -> referencing > + to the vtable struct somewhere in the same paragraph or at least section. > + </para> > + <para> > + Except in special situations (to separate locked from unlocked variants) > + locking requirements for functions aren't documented in the kerneldoc. > + Instead locking should be check at runtime using e.g. > + <code>WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(...));</code>. Since it's much easier to > + ignore documentation than runtime noise this provides more value. And on > + top of that runtime checks do need to be updated when the locking rules > + change, increasing the changes that they're correct. Within the > + documentation the locking rules should be explained in the relevant > + structures: Either in the comment for the lock explaining what it > + protects, or data fields need a note about which lock protects them, or > + both. > + </para> > + <para> > + Functions which have a non-<code>void</code> return value should have a > + section called "Returns" explaining the expected return values in > + different cases an their meanings. Currently there's no consensus whether > + that section name should be all upper-case or not, and whether it should > + end in a colon or not. Go with the file-local style. Other common section > + names are "Notes" with information for dangerous or tricky corner cases, > + and "FIXME" where the interface could be cleaned up. Why not define (and use) a single style for naming all sections? Old documentation might not use it, but it should be doable to upgrade those old documents. Pierre > + </para> > + </sect1> > </chapter> > > <!-- Internals --> > -- > 2.5.1 > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 10:59:05AM +0100, Pierre Moreau wrote: > On 09:49 AM - Dec 08 2015, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > + <para> > > + Functions which have a non-<code>void</code> return value should have a > > + section called "Returns" explaining the expected return values in > > + different cases an their meanings. Currently there's no consensus whether > > + that section name should be all upper-case or not, and whether it should > > + end in a colon or not. Go with the file-local style. Other common section > > + names are "Notes" with information for dangerous or tricky corner cases, > > + and "FIXME" where the interface could be cleaned up. > > Why not define (and use) a single style for naming all sections? Old > documentation might not use it, but it should be doable to upgrade those old > documents. There is a massive pile of these docs, and there is a slight difference in how vfunc table section headings and function reference section headings are rendered. Given that I figured I'll start modestly. But if you feel like making this consistent I'd definitely take a patch to do so. Same really for any of the other style guideline issues. Well, after we have some acks on this, and any large-scale style change should first do the RFC patch for this section for discussion to avoid the risk of wasting lots of time. -Daniel
Hello, On Tuesday 08 December 2015 10:59:05 Pierre Moreau wrote: > On 09:49 AM - Dec 08 2015, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Every time I type or review docs this seems a bit different. Try to > > document the common style so we can try to unify at least new docs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com> > > --- > > > > Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl > > b/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl index 86e5b12a49ba..5698c93dae8b 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl > > +++ b/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl > > @@ -124,6 +124,43 @@ > > <para> > > [Insert diagram of typical DRM stack here] > > </para> > > + <sect1> > > + <title>Style Guidelines</title> > > + <para> > > + For consistency these documentations use American English. > > Abbreviations > > + are written as all-uppercase, for example: DRM, KMS, IOCTL, CRTC, > > and so > > + on. To aid in reading documentations make full use of the markup > > + characters kerneldoc provides: @parameter for function paramters, > > @member > > paramters -> parameters > > > + for structure members, &structure to refernce structures and > > refernce -> reference > > > + function() for functions. These all get automatically hyperlinked > > if > > + kerneldoc for the referencec objects exists When referencing > > entries in > > referencec -> referenced, missing '.' after exists > > > + function vtables please use -<vfunc(). Note that with kerneldoc > > does > > Isn't "with" too much here? "Note that kerneldoc does not […]"? > > > + not support referncing struct members directly, so please add a > > reference > > referncing -> referencing > > > + to the vtable struct somewhere in the same paragraph or at least > > section. > > + </para> > > + <para> > > + Except in special situations (to separate locked from unlocked > > variants) > > + locking requirements for functions aren't documented in the > > kerneldoc. > > + Instead locking should be check at runtime using e.g. > > + <code>WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(...));</code>. Since it's much > > easier to > > + ignore documentation than runtime noise this provides more value. > > And on > > + top of that runtime checks do need to be updated when the locking > > rules > > + change, increasing the changes that they're correct. Within the s/changes/chances/ > > + documentation the locking rules should be explained in the relevant > > + structures: Either in the comment for the lock explaining what it > > + protects, or data fields need a note about which lock protects > > them, or > > + both. > > + </para> > > + <para> > > + Functions which have a non-<code>void</code> return value should > > have a > > + section called "Returns" explaining the expected return values in > > + different cases an their meanings. Currently there's no consensus s/an/and/ Apart from that, Acked-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> > > whether > > + that section name should be all upper-case or not, and whether it > > should > > + end in a colon or not. Go with the file-local style. Other common > > section > > + names are "Notes" with information for dangerous or tricky corner > > cases, > > + and "FIXME" where the interface could be cleaned up. > > Why not define (and use) a single style for naming all sections? Old > documentation might not use it, but it should be doable to upgrade those old > documents. > > > + </para> > > + </sect1> > > > > </chapter> > > <!-- Internals -->
diff --git a/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl b/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl index 86e5b12a49ba..5698c93dae8b 100644 --- a/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl +++ b/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl @@ -124,6 +124,43 @@ <para> [Insert diagram of typical DRM stack here] </para> + <sect1> + <title>Style Guidelines</title> + <para> + For consistency these documentations use American English. Abbreviations + are written as all-uppercase, for example: DRM, KMS, IOCTL, CRTC, and so + on. To aid in reading documentations make full use of the markup + characters kerneldoc provides: @parameter for function paramters, @member + for structure members, &structure to refernce structures and + function() for functions. These all get automatically hyperlinked if + kerneldoc for the referencec objects exists When referencing entries in + function vtables please use -<vfunc(). Note that with kerneldoc does + not support referncing struct members directly, so please add a reference + to the vtable struct somewhere in the same paragraph or at least section. + </para> + <para> + Except in special situations (to separate locked from unlocked variants) + locking requirements for functions aren't documented in the kerneldoc. + Instead locking should be check at runtime using e.g. + <code>WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(...));</code>. Since it's much easier to + ignore documentation than runtime noise this provides more value. And on + top of that runtime checks do need to be updated when the locking rules + change, increasing the changes that they're correct. Within the + documentation the locking rules should be explained in the relevant + structures: Either in the comment for the lock explaining what it + protects, or data fields need a note about which lock protects them, or + both. + </para> + <para> + Functions which have a non-<code>void</code> return value should have a + section called "Returns" explaining the expected return values in + different cases an their meanings. Currently there's no consensus whether + that section name should be all upper-case or not, and whether it should + end in a colon or not. Go with the file-local style. Other common section + names are "Notes" with information for dangerous or tricky corner cases, + and "FIXME" where the interface could be cleaned up. + </para> + </sect1> </chapter> <!-- Internals -->
Every time I type or review docs this seems a bit different. Try to document the common style so we can try to unify at least new docs. Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com> --- Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)