Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > It appears that folks "less versed in kernel coding" think that its > good style to document every function, even if they have no useful > information to pass to the future readers of the code. This used > to be just a waste of space, but with increased kdoc format linting > it's also a burden when refactoring the code. > > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > CC: corbet@xxxxxxx > CC: workflows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > CC: linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > --- > Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst > index 19d2ed47ff79..d1a8e5465ed9 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst > @@ -614,7 +614,10 @@ it. > > When commenting the kernel API functions, please use the kernel-doc format. > See the files at :ref:`Documentation/doc-guide/ <doc_guide>` and > -``scripts/kernel-doc`` for details. > +``scripts/kernel-doc`` for details. Note that the danger of over-commenting > +applies to kernel-doc comments all the same. Do not add boilerplate > +kernel-doc which simply reiterates what's obvious from the signature > +of the function. Applied, thanks. jon
