On 4. Nov 2025, at 00:47, Huang, Kai wrote: > It seems we don't have a consistent way of describing return values in the > k-doc comments in sgx/main.c. E.g., > > /** > * sgx_unmark_page_reclaimable() - Remove a page from the reclaim list > > ... > > * Return: > * 0 on success, > * -EBUSY if the page is in the process of being reclaimed > */ > > > /** > * sgx_alloc_epc_page() - Allocate an EPC page > > ... > > * Return: > * an EPC page, > * -errno on error > */ > > Perhaps we should make them consistent in format. > > But I think this can be done separately from fixing the typos. Maybe you > can split out the typo fixing as a separate patch, and have another patch to > fixing the return value description?
I used the style mostly found in main.c and ioctl.c - would that be the "correct" format for the others as well? Happy to submit a separate patch if it's worth it. Thanks, Thorsten
