On 10 May 2018 at 01:24, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> wrote: > On 05/09/2018 12:42 PM, Alistair Francis wrote: >> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:01 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> >> wrote: >>> Add more descriptive comments to keep a clear separation >>> between static property vs runtime changeable.
>> Why do we need a # here? > > I used the CPUState as a documentation example, but this might not be > the correct use... Our doc-comment syntax is rather inconsistent, because we've never actually run a tool over it to autogenerate documentation from the comments, and so there hasn't been anything syntax-checking them. The original intention for the syntax was gtkdoc, I think, where a leading '#' indicates a symbol that isn't a function, constant or parameter. However, I think the most recent consensus is that we should use kernel-doc format, which is similar but doesn't use the '#' markup: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt (The plan being that as we switch over to Sphinx for our docs tool workflow we can use the kernel's integration of kernel-doc into sphinx.) For this structure in particular, it is not a public struct, but local to a .c file. I think that for those there is not really any point in having any kind of doc-comment markup in it at all (ie no '#', no leading '/**'). thanks -- PMM
