Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] hw/virtio: Comment virtqueue_flush() must be called with RCU read lock

[Cornelia Huck]

On Mon, Sep 27 2021, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 9/27/21 12:18, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 06 2021, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Reported-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
>>> Suggested-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@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-0eee537ab5a4@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?