diff options
| author | Yacine Belkadi <yacine.belkadi.1@gmail.com> | 2012-11-26 22:21:23 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz> | 2012-11-27 21:08:57 +0100 |
| commit | e65fe5a91404af97a7a487e6c7606fb5e3807d7d (patch) | |
| tree | 5790d6f288fbe922a622d875179caf35799a140b /scripts | |
| parent | radeon: Fix typo and copy/paste error in comments (diff) | |
| download | linux-e65fe5a91404af97a7a487e6c7606fb5e3807d7d.tar.xz linux-e65fe5a91404af97a7a487e6c7606fb5e3807d7d.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>
Signed-off-by: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
Diffstat (limited to 'scripts')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions