Skip to content

Conversation

@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor

@nnethercote nnethercote commented Jul 29, 2025

  • Make the doc comments on the methods of the async types consistently refer to the methods of the sync types, and remove the allow(missing_docs).

  • Clarify the comments about the return type on the recv methods, to better explain what happens with buf, and to get the tuple ordering right.

Copy link
Member

@mkj mkj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One small thing - for commits only touching one crate could you give it a mctp: commit prefix etc? That makes scanning a bit easier for collating changelogs etc.

/// The sent message type will match that received by the
/// corresponding `AsyncListener`.
///
/// The `integrity_check` argument is the MCTP header IC bit.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we still might want something like

/// Equivalent of [`ReqChannel::send_vectored`]

Otherwise docs for traits that implement it won't have any link to ReqChannel, for example RouterAsyncReqChannel.

@nnethercote nnethercote changed the title Adjust mctp doc comments. mctp: Adjust doc comments Jul 30, 2025
- Make the doc comments on the methods of the async types consistently
  refer to the methods of the sync types, and remove the
  `allow(missing_docs)`.

- Clarify the comments about the return type on the `recv` methods, to
  better explain what happens with `buf`, and to get the tuple ordering
  right.

Signed-off-by: Nicholas Nethercote <[email protected]>
@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor Author

I have updated the async docs to consistently point to the equivalent sync docs. (The aim here was consistency rather than any particular form.)

@mkj mkj merged commit fdd21c3 into CodeConstruct:main Jul 30, 2025
3 checks passed
@mkj
Copy link
Member

mkj commented Jul 30, 2025

Thanks

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants