linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 33/42] drm/ttm/ttm_range_manager: Demote non-conformant kernel-doc header

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:   Mon, 16 Nov 2020 21:34:36 +0100
From:   Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 33/42] drm/ttm/ttm_range_manager: Demote non-conformant
 kernel-doc header

Am 16.11.20 um 18:41 schrieb Lee Jones:
> Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
>
>   drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_range_manager.c:46: warning: cannot understand function prototype: 'struct ttm_range_manager '
>
> Cc: Christian Koenig <christian.koenig@....com>
> Cc: Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>
> Cc: David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
> Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>

Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>

> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_range_manager.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_range_manager.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_range_manager.c
> index ea77919569a2e..e0952444cea93 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_range_manager.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_range_manager.c
> @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
>   #include <linux/spinlock.h>
>   #include <linux/module.h>
>   
> -/**
> +/*
>    * Currently we use a spinlock for the lock, but a mutex *may* be
>    * more appropriate to reduce scheduling latency if the range manager
>    * ends up with very fragmented allocation patterns.