On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 01:24:09PM +0200, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
On 18/10/2022 22:21, Beata Michalska wrote:
@@ -50,8 +50,9 @@ static inline void __user *uaddr_to_user_ptr(ptraddr_t addr) #ifndef uaddr_to_user_ptr_safe /**
- uaddr_to_user_ptr_safe - convert a kernel-generated user address to a user pointer
- @addr: the address to set the pointer to
- uaddr_to_user_ptr_safe() - Convert a kernel-generated user address to a
- user pointer.
This one seems bit weird. The guidelines do mention indentation for mutli-line argument description, not for function brief description though. So I guess we could either follow the arguments formatting or get rid of this indent whatsoever maybe ?
I wanted feedback on this one actually as it is indeed not specified, but I kind of felt that some indentation made it easier to read. If you feel it's better without I can easily remove it.
I was actually thinking of having the indentation aligned with the start of the description itself, so same as for arguments:
" If the ``@argument`` description has multiple lines, the continuation of the description should start at the same column as the previous line::"
but no strong opinion here.
Right so to be clear do you mean the column where the description starts after the "-"? That is:
- uaddr_to_user_ptr_safe() - Convert a kernel-generated user address to a
user pointer.I think that would make sense indeed.
Yes, that's what I had in mind. But then again, that was just a suggestion. --- B.
Kevin