linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/18] mtd: rawnand.h: use nested union kernel-doc markups

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 9 May 2018 10:28:26 -0300
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/18] mtd: rawnand.h: use nested union kernel-doc
 markups

Em Wed, 9 May 2018 14:22:21 +0200
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com> escreveu:

> On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:10:34 -0300
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Boris,
> > 
> > Em Mon, 7 May 2018 08:32:32 -0300
> > Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org> escreveu:
> >   
> > > Hi Boris,
> > > 
> > > Em Mon, 7 May 2018 11:46:50 +0200
> > > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com> escreveu:    
> >   
> > > > Is there a simple
> > > > way we can get rid of the warning we have when not describing timings
> > > > but all of its fields?      
> > > 
> > > There's no direct way. It won't be hard to add a way to do it,
> > > like applying the enclosed patch with ends by declaring timings as:
> > > 
> > > 	* @timings:	 -- undescribed --
> > > 
> > > IMHO, this is uglier.    
> > 
> > Didn't hear from you.  
> 
> I replied just a few minutes ago ;).

OK!

> > What do you prefer for me to do with regards to
> > this patch?   
> 
> Will queue the initial patch to nand/next (I can also queue it to the
> fixes branch if you prefer).

No need. it can follow the usual workflow.

Thanks,
Mauro