summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/Documentation/security/Yama.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorYacine Belkadi <yacine.belkadi.1@gmail.com>2012-11-26 22:21:23 +0100
committerJiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>2012-11-27 21:08:57 +0100
commite65fe5a91404af97a7a487e6c7606fb5e3807d7d (patch)
tree5790d6f288fbe922a622d875179caf35799a140b /Documentation/security/Yama.txt
parent501f9d4c1d5cb524e7c2be1203b5edc4a8edf593 (diff)
downloadtalos-obmc-linux-e65fe5a91404af97a7a487e6c7606fb5e3807d7d.tar.gz
talos-obmc-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 'Documentation/security/Yama.txt')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions
OpenPOWER on IntegriCloud