diff options
author | Yacine Belkadi <yacine.belkadi.1@gmail.com> | 2012-11-27 21:27:18 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz> | 2012-12-06 11:40:25 +0100 |
commit | ddf5eabd20c6cc2814fa2c00a1a033776fbc3e44 (patch) | |
tree | 8e8bc5c53c7e37fc0fc159efca0ac52bebd0172b /scripts/Lindent | |
parent | ddffeb8c4d0331609ef2581d84de4d763607bd37 (diff) | |
download | linux-ddf5eabd20c6cc2814fa2c00a1a033776fbc3e44.tar.gz linux-ddf5eabd20c6cc2814fa2c00a1a033776fbc3e44.tar.bz2 linux-ddf5eabd20c6cc2814fa2c00a1a033776fbc3e44.zip |
Kernel-doc: Convention: Use a "Return" section to describe return values
Non-void functions should describe their return values in their kernel-doc
comments. Currently, some don't, others do in various forms. For example:
* Return the result.
* Return: The result.
* Returns the result.
* Returns: the result.
* Return Value: The result.
* @return: the result.
* This function returns the result.
* It will return the result.
Defining a convention would improve consistency of kernel-doc comments. It
would also help scripts/kernel-doc identify the text describing the return
value of a function. Thus allowing additional checks on the comments, and
suitable highlighting in the generated docs (man pages, html, etc).
So, as a convention, use a section named "Return" to describe the return
value of a function.
Signed-off-by: Yacine Belkadi <yacine.belkadi.1@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>
Diffstat (limited to 'scripts/Lindent')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions