[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] kernel-doc: rename the kernel-doc directive 'functions' to 'specific'

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 08:48:48PM +0000, Tim.Bird at sony.com wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jani Nikula on October 13, 2019 11:00 PM
> > On Sun, 13 Oct 2019, Changbin Du <changbin.du at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The 'functions' directive is not only for functions, but also works for
> > > structs/unions. So the name is misleading. This patch renames it to
> > > 'specific', so now we have export/internal/specific directives to limit
> > > the functions/types to be included in documentation. Meanwhile we
> > improved
> > > the warning message.
> > 
> > Agreed on "functions" being less than perfect. It directly exposes the
> > idiosyncrasies of scripts/kernel-doc. I'm not sure "specific" is any
> > better, though.
> 
> I strongly agree with this.  'specific' IMHO, has no semantic value and
> I'd rather just leave the only-sometimes-wrong 'functions' than convert
> to something that obscures the meaning always.
> 
> > 
> > Perhaps "symbols" would be more self-explanatory. Or, actually make
> > "functions" only work on functions, and add a separate keyword for other
> > stuff. *shrug*
> My preference would be to use 'symbols'.  I tried to come up with something
> but 'symbols' is better than anything I came up with.

structures aren't symbols though ... How about 'identifier'?