Dear Joe Hershberger, [..]
> > Yes please, make it mandatory. Otherwise people won't obey and the > > documentation will suffer ... and all this would be meaningless. > > I think mandatory should only be for newly added functions. Pardon my wording, this is what I had in mind. > There is > already enough burden on touching existing code wrt checkpatch. The > reviewer can feel free to recommend documentation if appropriate... > possibly even drafting the docs. +1 > >> - If so, what does that mean for patches that touch existing code? > > > > Ask the current custodian to annotate their code. > > This seems like a nice approach to get pretty good coverage for areas > that have maintainers... it won't help for most of the common things > (unless you are suggesting that WD has an awful lot to document). With the DM, I slowly started to claim this role :-( > >> If I change the major part of an existing function (without changing > >> it's calling interface), am I obligued to add kernel-doc comments? > > > > Yes. Even though major vs. minor change seems pretty vague, common sense > > shall be applied here. > > And hence should not be mandatory to make the requirement criteria clear. > > >> If I change the calling interface, must I add documentation then? > > > > Of course, yes. > > Agreed. > > [...] > > -Joe _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot