On Mon, Sep 27 2021, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 9/27/21 12:18, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 06 2021, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> Reported-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarz...@redhat.com> >>> Suggested-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> include/hw/virtio/virtio.h | 7 +++++++ >>> hw/virtio/virtio.c | 1 + >>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h >>> index 8bab9cfb750..c1c5f6e53c8 100644 >>> --- a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h >>> +++ b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h >>> @@ -186,6 +186,13 @@ void virtio_delete_queue(VirtQueue *vq); >>> >>> void virtqueue_push(VirtQueue *vq, const VirtQueueElement *elem, >>> unsigned int len); >>> +/** >>> + * virtqueue_flush: >>> + * @vq: The #VirtQueue >>> + * @count: Number of elements to flush >>> + * >>> + * Must be called within RCU critical section. >>> + */ >> >> Hm... do these doc comments belong into .h files, or rather into .c files? > > Maybe we should restart this old thread, vote(?) and settle on a style? > > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/349cd87b-0526-30b8-d9cd-0eee537ab...@redhat.com/ My vote would still go to putting this into .c files :) Not sure if we want to go through the hassle of a wholesale cleanup; but if others agree, we could at least start with putting new doc comments next to the implementation. Do we actually consume these comments in an automated way somewhere?
