linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2.6.29-rc] regulator: add get

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]

Message-Id: <200901150735.29883.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date:	Thu, 15 Jan 2009 07:35:29 -0800
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...ena.org.uk>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.29-rc] regulator: add get_status()

On Thursday 15 January 2009, Liam Girdwood wrote:
> 
> > > +   /* report regulator status ... most other accessors report
> > > +    * control inputs, this reports results of combining inputs
> > > +    * from Linux (and other sources) with the actual load.
> > > +    */
> > > +   int (*get_status)(struct regulator_dev *);
> > > +
> > 
> > ...this needs kerneldoc adding.
> 
> Please send a separate patch for the kerneldoc as I've already applied.

So that will be the first member of "struct regulator_ops" to
grow kerneldoc ... out of a total of fifteen (now) members.
Hmm...

Maybe I'm not understanding what's meant by "kerneldoc adding".
Perhaps it's nothing more than a sentence resembling "returns
REGULATOR_STATUS_* code or negative errno", and not real
kerneldoc?

- Dave

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/