On Sunday 10 February 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: [...]
> > > +/* > > > + * kgdb_get_shadow_thread - Get the shadowed &task_struct of > > > @threadid. > > > + * @regs: The &struct pt_regs of the current thread. > > > + * @threadid: The thread id of the shadowed process to get > > > information on. > > > + * > > > + * RETURN: > > > + * This returns a pointer to the &struct task_struct of the > > > shadowed > > > + * thread, @threadid. > > > + */ > > > +extern struct task_struct *kgdb_get_shadow_thread(struct pt_regs *regs, > > > + int threadid); > > > > So we have kerneldoc comments in both places now? Didn't you say > > you converted these to something else? > > no. These are not DocBook comments, if you look carefully at the format > [it's not a leading '/**' comment block]. But obviously documenting this > in the include file is very useful, because that's where people look > first, so i kept it. (the APIs will not deviate across architectures) comments and variable names in include files have a tendency for going out-of-sync in the long term so IMO having a DocBook to point people at would be a better solution (+ it would shrink <linux/kgdb.h> by 122 lines) while at it: --- x86/kernel/kgdb.c 2008-02-10 20:30:39.000000000 +0100 +++ linux/kgdb.h 2008-02-10 20:25:21.000000000 +0100 @@ -128,11 +131,13 @@ * process more packets, and a %0 or %1 if it wants to exit from the * kgdb callback. */ -int kgdb_arch_handle_exception(int e_vector, int signo, int err_code, - char *remcomInBuffer, char *remcomOutBuffer, - struct pt_regs *linux_regs) +extern int +kgdb_arch_handle_exception(int vector, int signo, int err_code, + char *remcom_in_buffer, + char *remcom_out_buffer, + struct pt_regs *regs); -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
